Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!
Hello, readers! Please consider adding conspiracyoutpost.com to your adblock whitelist. Our ads support the development and upkeep of the site.
Vechthaan

Concave Earth is frying my brain

Recommended Posts

 Vechthaan    20

Hello COP,

 

I would love to hear some insights from people on the concave Earth theory.

 

For those not completely aware of the concave Earth theory, Lord Steven Christ (by his own admission) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFoxStevie does a pretty good of explaining it, and he has fancy 3D models to go along with it. It's essentially the ball Earth (as we know it), but we're in the inside. The sky is inside this ball (as are the heavens/stars/firmament) and the ground is "the edge". The longer I think about this model, the more it's starting to make sense. It's hard for me to write a cohesive piece, but I'll try and list what I concider important information in favor of the concave Earth.

 

Though a quick note:

For the concave Earth to be viable, light needs to be able to bend, for this is how the illusion of a flat plane is created. (Those weather balloon cameras 100,000 feet up) If you're not onboard the idea of light being able to bend within the concave Earth, or you're not able to suspend your disbelief, you'll find little value in this thread.

 

 

1) Illuminati and opposites.

Our overlords like to invert everything. (gender, values, ...) Following this reasoning, it would make sense that they also inverted the shape of the Earth, it's their calling card.

 

2) Experiments.

There's the rectilineator experiment, aswell as the shift mines (with plum bobs) that confirm a concave Earth. I'm aware these experiments have been criticised, but the results still showed a concave Earth. I'm all in favor of redoing these experiments with modern equipment, but we're nowhere near the point of getting something like this off the ground. So untill that point, I'll simply count these experiments in favor of a concave Earth, if only to investigate it further.

 

3) It has a working model.

Now I'm sure people will argue this, but the way I see it: if the Ball Earth (convex) is good enough of a working model, then so should the concave Earth be, because it's merely inverted. This also solves all the problems Flat Earthers are currently wrapping their heads around: Southern hemisphere night sky, Sun rising in the east on equinoxes, etc... Pretty much all those pesky issues we Flat Earthers have regarding the nightsky would get solved in an instant, because again if the mainstream model is working, than so should the inverse.  Steven Christ (I'm not ready to call him Lord yet lol) has numerous videos on all kinds of astronomical phenomena (retrograde motion etc) with his 3D model and as far as I'm concerned it seems viable enough.

 

4) "Dome" over a flat Earth?.

Ok, so this is obviously up for debate, but the more I think about the "dome-shaped nature" of the firmament over a flat Earth:

Shouldn't this mean that the further we go North, the higher the edge of the firmament would be? The Karman line is a consistent 100km up across our world, I obviously never tested this myself, nor did anyone here on this forum, but how exactly would that work over a flat plane? It's not so much a dome as it is a ceiling. A ceiling REALLY close to the ground, as the theoretical flat disk should have a diameter of well over:

40,000 km (equator length) / Pi = 12,500 km x 2 = 25,000 km. (Times 2 because the equator is somewhat in the middle of the disk on a flat Earth)

 

So we have a disk that's 25,000 km in length, with a 'dome' overhead that's only a fraction of that (100km) high, across the entire plane.

What bothers me about this model (and this goes for EVERY Flat Earth model) is that when you imagine such a disk (or infinite plane) with such a small film of atmosphere above it, there's no elegance to it whatsoever. Instead, it makes me wonder what exactly is holding up this firmament, because despite what alot of Flat Earthers will claim, gravity does exist. (Read:  a basic, universal force that pulls everything down at 9,81 m/s^2) I'm aware relativity and special relativity are bullshit, but that doesn't mean this force does not exist.

Whenever I see those Flat Earth representations with the dome overhead, I'm obviously happy (cuz I love for conspiracies), but I now also realize how decieving that image is aswell. Your brain sees a natural, self-supporting (strong) dome shape and goes like: Ok this makes sense. In reality, this dome would be nothing like this, as previously explained.

 

In a concave Earth, it seems to make a whole-lotta-more sense where the firmament is suspended "above" us (it's a concentric sphere more inwards). Instead of everything getting pulled inwards towards the center (of Earth) at 9,81 m/s^2 for the globe model, everything gets pushed outwards, away from the center. I wouldn't even have to suspend my disbelief on the mechanics of what exactly is holding up the firmament (as I do with Flat Earth theory, still a big fan), because it makes sense mechanically and scientifically. The 'dome' is nothing more than a glass (crystalline, i don't know whatever susbstance) ball that's evenly getting pushed outwards across it's entire surface.

There's also the megacryometeor thing LSC talks about, but I wouldn't count that exclusive to concave Earth. Those seem viable on a flat Earth with firmament/dome overhead aswell, though it still makes more sense on concave.

 

5) Philosophically

The Big Bang theory is a pretty shitty explanation of "how everything came to be". Everything out of nothing in a single instance, cuz you know quantum mechanics and stuff. Infinitely expanding space (Hope we dont bump into different universes) with no limit or reason to it.

For me, Flat Earth has a similar problem: If God (or whatever) created the Earth: how far does the plane go? How far did "God" make the plane extend? There's obviously various theories (more land beyond Antartica, maybe Antarctica doesn't even exist and we can littereally sail to beyond the border, ...) but all of these ultimately raise the question: And what lies beyond?

Now, I realize U can ask this same question for the concave Earth (what lies 'beyond' Earth, what happens when we dig 20 miles, 100 miles, 1000 miles, ...), but you can't deny there's a certain elegance to concave Earth the Flat Earth just doesn't have. (this infinite plane with a film of atmosphere)

 

In the beginning there was... God...

I'll never be a fan of this explanation, but if I have to chose between a convex, flat or concave Earth, the most reasonable explanation seems concave. Whatever existed first in our universe is at the center (litterealy). From there on, there's only 1 logical and realistic way forward: outwards. This leads to the various concentric circles created "around" the vault of heaven with Earth being the last (I assume?) sphere on which we walk.

I can't help but feel that if I'm going down the religious road (and I've been heading here for a while now, despite my atheistic indoctrination that's constantly pulling me back), the concave Earth takes the cake. Simply because in my opinion it best fits the "Creation"-bill.

Long story short: God/Heaven exists at the most center sphere and eventually he got bored and started to create a universe outwards.

 

6) Scripture

I don't know much about scriptures other than the occasional quote I see passed in flat Earth (or other YT) videos,  though I was raised catholic/atheistic (as most Westerners are I assume, I learned some stuff bout Jesus and we read parts of the Bible pre high-school, but after that religion gets pushed aside heavily).

Some things that have stuck with me, though, is how apparently in old Hebrew, the Bible speaks of the spheres of heaven. This whole concept makes perfect sense on a concave Earth (with Lucifer and his followers being cast OUTwards).

There were some other things I read that seemed to make more sense in a concave Earth (over flat or convex), but they currently seem to allude me. I'll probably add more later.

I would like to add in this section that i'm very well aware the Bible (according to some) describes a flat and motionless plane. Yet there's other (e.g;: A Freeman) who would take this up for debate, and I admit not knowing nearly as much about scripture as he does. That said, I'll always be sceptical of anything the Bible, or any scripture says (unless it furthers my cause offcourse, don't we all), because I've seen the lengths TPTB go through to decieve us.

 

I dont know what to believe anymore, but I do know the concave Earth makes more sense with each passing day. It bothers me (heavily) that the only venue for decent information is going to this guy's (Lord Steven Christ) channel to look for insights. He tends to blow his own horn (alot), which is fine, but that coupled with his eccentricity aswell as all the illuminati symbolism (I'm more inclined to believe he's the Anti-christ as opposed to Christ, no offence buddy if you're lurking) makes it an extremely hard swallow.

 

I would love to hear people's thoughts on this topic, because I don't think it's getting nearly as much screentime as it should.

 

Small edit:

Also this show seems to be pretty big right now:

Much thanks!

 

Edited by Vechthaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Uncle Thanky    933

While the shape of the thing is debatable, and I myself have questions with no answers.

The important thing to remember is that we are all here together.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Vechthaan    20

No worries, I'm filled to the brim with love (for life and people). Not exactly, but close enough. I feel more connected to the human race than I ever did believing heliocentrism.

 

For some reason, the implications of a concave Earth seem more profound than the Flat Earth, which is why I want this thing getting off the ground. I'll keep supporting flat earth for the good work it does, but it seems crazy that so many people can be onboard the FE-train without giving the concave Earth a shot. I do concider it a serious contender, perhaps even more so than FE at this moment...

Edited by Vechthaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quiet Storm    809

Honestly, a lot of people are sick to death of the debates on the shape of the earth.

Most people really do not care, nor do they even think it's that important.

When the state of the planet and the people are in the condition were in, Who really gives a rats ass about flat earth, ball earth, hollow earth, concave earth, etc.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Walk Softly    2,161
10 minutes ago, Quiet Storm said:

Honestly, a lot of people are sick to death of the debates on the shape of the earth.

Most people really do not care, nor do they even think it's that important.

When the state of the planet and the people are in the condition were in, Who really gives a rats ass about flat earth, ball earth, hollow earth, concave earth, etc.

 

Obviously you care... Here you are. 

Don't care, don't look.  

It matters to some, or their obviously wouldn't be posts about it!

I think it's about censorship for lots of folks... Sad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quiet Storm    809
6 minutes ago, Walk Softly said:

Obviously you care... Here you are. 

Don't care, don't look.  

It matters to some, or their obviously wouldn't be posts about it!

I think it's about censorship for lots of folks... Sad.  

I already knew you, or one of your co-horts would be LURKING about, and feel the absolute need to respond.  So, so, sad.  Your entire life revolves around something that will NEVER be a proven fact.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Carnivalpunk    509

Bending light or internal reflection.

No problem with it being called bending. 

Time travel to find the shortest route works as well.

Edited by Carnivalpunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 DRUMZ    723

I will personally stick with that  crazy ball earth conspiracy theory.

I know that it is a very difficult concept for some people to comprehend but hey,  I never claimed to be completely sane now have I? 

:banana-riding-llama-smiley-emoticon::beerl::banana-riding-llama-smiley-emoticon:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Picklesnout    216

While living in Alexandria, Eratosthenes received some amazing correspondence from the city of Syene in southern Egypt. In particular, it said that, on the Summer Solstice,

the shadow of someone looking down a deep well would block the reflection of the Sun at noon.

In other words, the Sun would be directly overhead at this time, not a single degree to the South, North, East or West. And if you had a completely vertical object, it would cast absolutely no shadow.

But Eratosthenes knew that this wasn’t the case where he was, in Alexandria. Sure, the Sun came closer to being directly overhead at Noon on the Summer Solstice in Alexandria than at any other time during the year, but vertical objects still cast shadows.

And — like any good scientist — Eratosthenes did the experiment. By measuring the length of the shadow cast by a vertical stick during the solstice noon, he could figure out what angle the Sun made with the vertical direction at Alexandria.

But Eratosthenes knew that this wasn’t the case where he was, in Alexandria. Sure, the Sun came closer to being directly overhead at Noon on the Summer Solstice in Alexandria than at any other time during the year, but vertical objects still cast shadows.

And — like any good scientist — Eratosthenes did the experiment. By measuring the length of the shadow cast by a vertical stick during the solstice noon, he could figure out what angle the Sun made with the vertical direction at Alexandria.

And the answer he got was one-fiftieth of a circle, or 7.2 degrees. But at this time, in Syene, the angle the Sun was making with an identical vertical stick was zero degrees! What could be causing this? In perhaps a stroke of genius, Eratosthenes realized that the Sun’s rays could all be parallel, and that the Earth could be curved!

 

Is the premise that the light is what bent? Because a concave would produce different maths than a convex. I also thought it was well proven that light goes in a straight line unless acted upon by gravity... So for me, no and no. Casual observation puts these to rest for me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up to our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Jump To Top
×