Concave Hollow Earth Theory

[kinda]

My dad had a plane and I would fly with him sometimes weekly throughout my childhood. I have no idea how many times I've flown. One thing I always noticed was how I was able to see the curve of the horizon. The earth is round...I've seen it perhaps hundreds of times.
We didn't really talk about it...we also didn't talk about the sky being blue. Or water being wet.

That's awesome. I was thinking of an experiment that could give a conclusion on whether the earth is convex or concave.

If the earth is convex, than if you fly at say a 100 feet above sea level, level the plane so it's balanced, than the plane should rise in altitude, if the earth is convex. Of course tides would play a small part in margin of error, but a conclusion could still be made.

Now if the earth is concave, and the same experiment is made, the plane should slowly lose altitude, if the earth is concave.

Would be fun to try this, yes I know, results could be tainted by scammers, but many pilots could try this, and see what all the results were like. I recently seen a video where a pilot said, the only way to increase altitude, is to direct the plane up, this goes against a convex earth, since you would be essentially flying off a cliff, so altitude should be increased over time, if we used a some what stable level, such as an ocean.

 

[kinda]

Just so there is no confusion, if you believe the convex earth model (heliocentric/ball earth) has a horizon, and there is no possible way we live in a concave hollow earth, because concave hollow earth model can't have a horizon; I would submit this to you, that you believe in a mirage.

Concave Hollow Earth believes in concavity to explain this video, while the news media says, it's a mirage. Did you understand what I just said?

I did submit a request to Professor Dave, who debunks the flat earth for fun, to debunk the concave hollow earth. This would be really fun, I would bet that he doesn't accept the challenge, but would be thrilled, if he actually tried. I seen some flaws in his arguments with the flat earth model, he acknowledged one of them, but he gets so animated, that maybe he doesn't see all of them. He still does an excellent job deflating the flat earth religion.

 

[kinda]

Video explains that curvature of earth can be calculated with a very good estimate as: Curvature of earth = (miles) squared X 8 inches

1 mile will be 8 inch curvature down
10 miles will be 800 inches curvature down

So, if someone was flying a plane at 100 feet above sea level at the start of a 10 mile flight, their altitude should be 167 feet (estimation) above sea level after 10 miles, to prove the earth is convex. (Proving Heliocentric ball earth)

Curvature of earth = (10 X 10) X 8
C = 100 X 8
C = 800 inches or roughly 67 feet.

Now if the curvature of the earth is concave, like the concave hollow earth model would suggest, than after 10 miles the plane should be at 33 feet above sea level. (Proving Concave Hollow Earth)

Anybody have any ideas if there is a lazer pointer that can reach 1 to 10 miles? Possibly a telescope could work also, but would need two people. A bay or large harbor would work great. I want to try this experiment one day, should be fun.

Chicago skyline seen from Michigan.

100km = 62 miles, but using 60 miles to compare with math in picture.

Curvature of earth = (60 X 60) X 8 inches
C = ( 3600 ) X 8 inches
C = 28800 inches or roughly 2400 feet

The math they used in the illustration is a little different. 8 inches equals 20.32 cm. 20.32 cm X (60 miles to 60 miles) = 731.52m Than they are subtracting 100 meters for the height of dune from 731.52m, which equals 631.52m. 631.52 meters converted to feet is approximately 2,072 feet.

We can easily confirm that, if the earth is convex, that Chicago would be roughly 2,000 feet below Michigan, when viewing Chicago, from Michigan.

So, you either believe in a mirage, flat earth, or a concave hollow earth. The video from the science guy concluded that the formula C= (miles) squared X 8 inches is accurate for an estimation, and that at 100 miles using this formula, your only off roughly 5 feet in curvature, compared to an approved NASA formula.

My answer is that we live in a Concave Hollow Earth.

 

[kinda]

I'm requesting help from Physics majors. Physics wasn't my strongest subject in college, it was incredibly difficult. Never taken Geometry, but took a basic Trigonometry class. Can someone help me? @posthuman posthuman #help lol

Video shows bicyclist calculating circumference of the earth by using two sundials. I'm thinking it's possible to show circumference of the earth between two sun dials from say, 10 miles a part in relatively the same altitude, or within 30 feet in height. Just need a little help from my friends. lol

Need help with setting up this experiment and with the magic formula. Thanks for any assistance!

 

[kinda]

I'm requesting help from Physics majors. Physics wasn't my strongest subject in college, it was incredibly difficult. Never taken Geometry, but took a basic Trigonometry class. Can someone help me? @posthuman posthuman #help lol

Video shows bicyclist calculating circumference of the earth by using two sundials. I'm thinking it's possible to show circumference of the earth between two sun dials from say, 10 miles a part in relatively the same altitude, or within 30 feet in height. Just need a little help from my friends. lol

Need help with setting up this experiment and with the magic formula. Thanks for any assistance!

I was thinking it would be possible using this guys number to calculate curvature also, than no work has to be done, except punching numbers in a calculator.

 

[posthuman]

I'm requesting help from Physics majors. Physics wasn't my strongest subject in college, it was incredibly difficult. Never taken Geometry, but took a basic Trigonometry class. Can someone help me? @posthuman posthuman #help lol

Video shows bicyclist calculating circumference of the earth by using two sundials. I'm thinking it's possible to show circumference of the earth between two sun dials from say, 10 miles a part in relatively the same altitude, or within 30 feet in height. Just need a little help from my friends. lol

Need help with setting up this experiment and with the magic formula. Thanks for any assistance!

Erathones understood the angle of the sun's rays at noon to be 0° in Syene, Egypt. a well there was observed to, on the solstice, have sunlight shining directly on the water inside without lighting up the walls -- therefore the sun was overhead.

he lived in Alexandria - the head librarian there - so he hired a man to walk to Syene ((modern-day Aswan)), which is roughly due south of Alexandria, and report the time it took to walk. knowing the speed the man could walk, he sorted out how long the distance must be.
in Alexandria he measured the angle of the sun by measuring the shadow of a vertical pole of known length - the tangent of the angle = the length of his pole divided by the length of the shadow.

so, knowing the two angles, in this case 0 and 7.2, he then assumed the sun's rays are parallel lines - that is, the sunlight on Alexandria is parallel to the sunlight on Syene.

since interior angles formed by a line crossing two parallel lines are equal, he deduced the angle of an arc made up of two lines from the center of the earth to the two cities. angle 'A' equals angle 'A' in the picture:




from there you can use the arclength formula:

s = r·θ

where s = the distance between the two measurement points, θ = the difference in the measured angles of sunlight ((in radians)), and r = the radius of the earth, which you can solve for:
r = s/θ

then you have an estimate for the circumference of the earth, 2·π·r






it's important for this method that you know the north-south distance between the two points, and that you take the angle measurements on the same day at the same time. it's also an important assumption that the sunlight is roughly parallel hitting the earth - and that you understand the surface of the earth to be convexly curved, not flat, nor concave. you'd need a different formula for either of those geometries.

 

[kinda]

View attachment 235091

Erathones understood the angle of the sun's rays at noon to be 0° in Syene, Egypt. a well there was observed to, on the solstice, have sunlight shining directly on the water inside without lighting up the walls -- therefore the sun was overhead.

he lived in Alexandria - the head librarian there - so he hired a man to walk to Syene ((modern-day Aswan)), which is roughly due south of Alexandria, and report the time it took to walk. knowing the speed the man could walk, he sorted out how long the distance must be.
in Alexandria he measured the angle of the sun by measuring the shadow of a vertical pole of known length - the tangent of the angle = the length of his pole divided by the length of the shadow.

so, knowing the two angles, in this case 0 and 7.2, he then assumed the sun's rays are parallel lines - that is, the sunlight on Alexandria is parallel to the sunlight on Syene.

since interior angles formed by a line crossing two parallel lines are equal, he deduced the angle of an arc made up of two lines from the center of the earth to the two cities. angle 'A' equals angle 'A' in the picture:

View attachment 235095


from there you can use the arclength formula:

s = r·θ

where s = the distance between the two measurement points, θ = the difference in the measured angles of sunlight ((in radians)), and r = the radius of the earth, which you can solve for:
r = s/θ

then you have an estimate for the circumference of the earth, 2·π·r


View attachment 235096



it's important for this method that you know the north-south distance between the two points, and that you take the angle measurements on the same day at the same time. it's also an important assumption that the sunlight is roughly parallel hitting the earth - and that you understand the surface of the earth to be convexly curved, not flat, nor concave. you'd need a different formula for either of those geometries.

Thanks! Looks like I got my homework to do.

 

[kinda]

View attachment 235091

Erathones understood the angle of the sun's rays at noon to be 0° in Syene, Egypt. a well there was observed to, on the solstice, have sunlight shining directly on the water inside without lighting up the walls -- therefore the sun was overhead.

he lived in Alexandria - the head librarian there - so he hired a man to walk to Syene ((modern-day Aswan)), which is roughly due south of Alexandria, and report the time it took to walk. knowing the speed the man could walk, he sorted out how long the distance must be.
in Alexandria he measured the angle of the sun by measuring the shadow of a vertical pole of known length - the tangent of the angle = the length of his pole divided by the length of the shadow.

so, knowing the two angles, in this case 0 and 7.2, he then assumed the sun's rays are parallel lines - that is, the sunlight on Alexandria is parallel to the sunlight on Syene.

since interior angles formed by a line crossing two parallel lines are equal, he deduced the angle of an arc made up of two lines from the center of the earth to the two cities. angle 'A' equals angle 'A' in the picture:

View attachment 235095


from there you can use the arclength formula:

s = r·θ

where s = the distance between the two measurement points, θ = the difference in the measured angles of sunlight ((in radians)), and r = the radius of the earth, which you can solve for:
r = s/θ

then you have an estimate for the circumference of the earth, 2·π·r


View attachment 235096



it's important for this method that you know the north-south distance between the two points, and that you take the angle measurements on the same day at the same time. it's also an important assumption that the sunlight is roughly parallel hitting the earth - and that you understand the surface of the earth to be convexly curved, not flat, nor concave. you'd need a different formula for either of those geometries.

I do have a question, why wouldn't the formula work, if you think the earth is concave? I want to measure the curvature, whether it be concave or convex, don't believe in a flat earth. Would need a formula that measures curvature and it's not prejudice. I'm thinking this method is to complicated, even the guy in the video got help from a science center, and still said, he messed up the timing. The guy appears very informed about science and he manages to mess it up by 17%, according to his own words.

I appreciate your help and will try to understand it. I might just create my own experiment and make it much more simple. Being working out a few ideas.

 

[posthuman]

I do have a question, why wouldn't the formula work, if you think the earth is concave? I want to measure the curvature, whether it be concave or convex, don't believe in a flat earth. Would need a formula that measures curvature and it's not prejudice. I'm thinking this method is to complicated, even the guy in the video got help from a science center, and still said, he messed up the timing. The guy appears very informed about science and he manages to mess it up by 17%, according to his own words.

I appreciate your help and will try to understand it. I might just create my own experiment and make it much more simple. Being working out a few ideas.

you'd be measuring the distance to the sun, instead of the radius of the earth.

 

[kinda]

you'd be measuring the distance to the sun, instead of the radius of the earth.

The video said, he calculated the circumference of the earth with the formula and two sun dials. So, still confused. I don't want to take to much of your time. I need to figure this out on my own, asking for help was cheating.

Was thinking about placing measuring sticks across a lake a mile long, than maybe doing a measurement to see if the sticks are slowly declining, or slowly rising from either end of the mile. The water line would be the horizon and the sticks would act as tool to confirm, if the sticks are going down, or going up 8 inches after a mile. Could use a measuring wheel to measure distance and laser pointer or telescope to see, if sticks slope up, or if sticks slope down. (The Caveman Test)

Much easier for a caveman in training to keep it simple.

 

[posthuman]

you'd be measuring the distance to the sun, instead of the radius of the earth.

well, if the earth is hollow and the sun is in the center of it i guess the distance to the sun is **almost** the the radius of the earth ((minus the radius of the sun)) - i didn't think of that earlier.

but there are a couple of issues with this method..

one is that if the sun is centered in a hollow planet, it should never make a shadow for a vertical pole, no matter where you are in the inside of the sphere -- the sun would always be directly overhead.



that gives you all kinds of problems similar to the flat-planet one, that is, how do you have night time, how do you reconcile the observed differences in the suns path over the course of different seasons, and how do you explain the sun appearing to travel in different paths directly related to where you are on the planet? like the equator and the tropics, etc. and sunrise & sunset, all over again.

so -- you could say ok, move the sun off-center so i will have shadows from vertical poles, and it's not always overhead. let the sun rotate around the true center of the hollow planet, and maybe that will account for equators and tropics and the different paths the sun appears to take in the sky over the course of a year.

but, then you can't use this method to calculate, because now you introduced a new problem: the sun isn't in the center, so it's not giving you a radius, only a distance to the sun - and because it is offset, you get different distance measurements in different places

 

[kinda]

well, if the earth is hollow and the sun is in the center of it i guess the distance to the sun is **almost** the the radius of the earth ((minus the radius of the sun)) - i didn't think of that earlier.

but there are a couple of issues with this method..

one is that if the sun is centered in a hollow planet, it should never make a shadow for a vertical pole, no matter where you are in the inside of the sphere -- the sun would always be directly overhead.

View attachment 235101

that gives you all kinds of problems similar to the flat-planet one, that is, how do you have night time, how do you reconcile the observed differences in the suns path over the course of different seasons, and how do you explain the sun appearing to travel in different paths directly related to where you are on the planet? like the equator and the tropics, etc. and sunrise & sunset, all over again.

so -- you could say ok, move the sun off-center so i will have shadows from vertical poles, and it's not always overhead. let the sun rotate around the true center of the hollow planet, and maybe that will account for equators and tropics and the different paths the sun appears to take in the sky over the course of a year.

but, then you can't use this method to calculate, because now you introduced a new problem: the sun isn't in the center, so it's not giving you a radius, only a distance to the sun - and because it is offset, you get different distance measurements in different places

View attachment 235102

I appreciate your criticism!!!!!! I love it! Destroy the Concave Hollow Earth, if you please. Once again thanks for sharing your skepticism.

I will send you a video to your pm, that breaks down things that I don't understand or can't actually observe, so you can view, and start your criticism. I would post the video in this thread, but not sure it's appropriate for CC.

The sun is in inner space (not dead center), along with the moon, stars, and planets. Look at a few pages back and you will see the Cellular Cosmology break down.

I have created a survey experiment, that bypasses many obstacles, and is very basic. Anyone will be able to try this experiment and conclude for themselves. Not sure which way it will lean, but a result will come. Thinking about doing it in Spring, maybe sooner. Who knows?!?!

Also, look at this website, it pretty much explains all the major talking points.

https://lonestar1776.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/concave-earth-for-dummies/

https://lonestar1776.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/concave-earth-for-dummies/

 

[kinda]

The video said, he calculated the circumference of the earth with the formula and two sun dials. So, still confused. I don't want to take to much of your time. I need to figure this out on my own, asking for help was cheating.

Was thinking about placing measuring sticks across a lake a mile long, than maybe doing a measurement to see if the sticks are slowly declining, or slowly rising from either end of the mile. The water line would be the horizon and the sticks would act as tool to confirm, if the sticks are going down, or going up 8 inches after a mile. Could use a measuring wheel to measure distance and laser pointer or telescope to see, if sticks slope up, or if sticks slope down. (The Caveman Test)

Much easier for a caveman in training to keep it simple.

View attachment 235099

Looks like my experiment was already done. Great minds think a like?!?!

"However, Professor Hallock of Columbia University was of a different mind. He heard of the experiment through a professor at the Michigan College. He held that this actually was attraction upon the plumb lines and in a very astute article, told how easily the matter could be settled by using phosphor bronze wires instead of piano wires, and lead bobs for iron bobs. The tamarack engineer, delighted at an opportunity to clear his mind of its confusion, followed instructions to the letter and came up with precisely the same measurements as before. When Professor Hallock was informed of this result, he retired into a dignified and stony silence. No so the Tamarack engineer. He had decided that something was causing this phenomena, and he was going to find out what it was.

Plumb bobs suspended in a single mine shaft gave too delicate a difference in measurement, and after all, were not accurate enough to give any reliable figures on the amount of deviation (for instance, per mile) and whether or not the deviation had any relation to the size of the earth. After all, it had originally been the purpose of the French Geodetic Survey to refine the actual size of the Earth as then known to a more accurate figure. They had something in mind concerning artillery, as well as astronomy.

A second series of experiments were conducted at Calumet. This time two elevator shafts into the mine were used instead of one, those numbered two and five. These two were 4,250 feet apart, and were also 4,250 feet deep. They were connected at the bottom by a perfectly straight transverse tunnel. Now, plumb bobs were hung in each shaft, and measurements were made. This time it was found that the plumb lines were 8.22 inches (21 cm) farther apart at the bottom than at the top.

It did not take the Tamarack engineer long to discover the divergence that would be necessary to complete a 360 spherical circumference. There was only one difficulty as expressed be the plumb lines, it would be the circumference of the inside of a sphere, and not the outside; Further, the center of gravity, as expressed by the angles formed by the plumb lines, would be approximately 4,000 miles out in space!

Obviously this could not be true, because if the Chinese were to make calculations based on a similar pair of mine shafts in their country, on the opposite side of the globe, the center of gravity would be found to be 4000 miles in the other direction. The center of gravity, according to the plumb lines, was a spheres surface, some 16 000 miles in diameter. Any place, 4 000 miles up, was the center of gravity.

Can we blame the Tamarack engineer for going down in his mine and maintaining a grim silence from that moment on?

The United States Geodetic Survey crew for two years conducted further experiments, among them measuring the surface of a long lake in Florida on the theory that water conforms to the true curvature of the Earths surface regardless of how the land may be, thus giving a true level only to find that the water curved uphill in each direction rather than downhill. Can we blame them for deciding that to give these startling figures to the world would have no bearing on the practical problems of life, and was therefore best forgotten, since an explanation was beyond them?"


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

 

[kinda]

The United States Geodetic Survey crew for two years conducted further experiments, among them measuring the surface of a long lake in Florida on the theory that water conforms to the true curvature of the Earths surface regardless of how the land may be, thus giving a true level only to find that the water curved uphill in each direction rather than downhill. Can we blame them for deciding that to give these startling figures to the world would have no bearing on the practical problems of life, and was therefore best forgotten, since an explanation was beyond them?"


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

I'm going to try this experiment as soon as my laser pointer comes in and my survey of a local lake is complete. Will post findings and pictures.

 

[tourist]

This is fascinating. I never knew anything about this idea.

Apparently not fascinating enough for you to remain a member seeing as you are now a guest.

 

[kinda]

Here is another mirage or more proof for a concave earth.

 

[kinda]

Well, I did notice another flat earth thread, so why not bring back the concave hollow earth thread?!?! lol

Update, I did get my laser pointer, but it turns out these things are dangerous, so wasn't gonna put anyone at risk. The experiment could still be done with sticks and a telescope, but no one has bothered to disprove concave hollow earth in this thread, so figure I give everyone one more chance. By the way, the U.S. Government already did the survey in a Florida Lake, which showed that the water on the lake was going up in both directions, not down, but the college who had the website has been taken down. Cover up!!! lol

I did contact Professor Dave and asked him to disprove the Concave Hollow Earth, and he hasn't responded, or made a video about the subject. He has made more videos disproving Flat Earth Theory though. Conspiracy or strategic silence?!?! lol

A few of the videos I posted in this site have been taken down and the one and only website that had a forum for Concave Hollow Earth has been malfunctioning all year. Also, one crazy person, yet one of the leaders of the current Concave Hollow Earth was arrested, and died in jail at a very young age. All coincidences or a new conspiracy?!?!

 

[Dude653]

The way the scientific method works is that a theory needs to be based on observable evidence so this is a hypothesis

 

[kinda]

The way the scientific method works is that a theory needs to be based on observable evidence so this is a hypothesis

You are really arguing semantics, but is a nice distraction technique. What about the disproving part?

I have posted a host of websites, drawings, pictures, and videos that show research has already been done. Edmond Halley did a few experiments himself.

Hypothesis vs Theory.

"A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage

 

[Dude653]

You are really arguing semantics, but is a nice distraction technique. What about the disproving part?

I have posted a host of websites, drawings, pictures, and videos that show research has already been done. Edmond Halley did a few experiments himself.

Hypothesis vs Theory.

"A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage

it's not semantics
The way the scientific method works is that a theory is not called a theory until it is backed by observable and peer-reviewed evidence.
A hypothesis is a guess