Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

a reply to: All Seeing Eye


Edmund Halley proposed that as a an idea - a theory - to explain anomalous compass readings.

It was NOT based upon observation, obviously. He did not "proclaim" the Earth to be hollow, either, he put it out as a theory. This was not Observational Science at all. Unless you can tell me I am wrong and cite what "observations" he might have made?

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Again with the assumptions AllSeeingEye

Hawking is our pope? You realize i am a professional scientist right? and that iv never met Hawking, nor have I read much of his popular science statements on this and that.

Have you ever been in a room with actual scientists? You seem to wrongly believe or assume you know how and what science is. You are clearly very ignorant of it and have soaked up all of the conspiracy stuff and ignored ACTUAL OBSERVATION, something you appear to obsess over but clearly dont understand either.

I am a detector scientist, it is my job to make sure we understand the observations made by the instruments, and that the instruments are understood very well on a fundamental level.

You seem to pick and choose your favourite statements and articles based entirely upon confirmation bias. In the same way in which you ignore observations.

One observation is the angular momentum of the solar system, or, each object in the solar system. What we OBSERVE is that all the major objects in the solar system sit on a straight line. One of the anomalies is the Earth and moon, which appear to have less angular momentum than the line or trend says they should have... Oh but wait, if you add them together, they actually match perfectly to the trend.

So what does this tell you? well, what it can be evidence for, - Observational evidence for based on 1) the mass, 2) the rotation and 3) the location in the solar system - the Earth and Moon once being the same object during formation.

Another pointer is the tidal locking of the Earth and moon system. It occurs - observationally - throughout the solar system for objects that are older than a certain age and have formed gravitationally nearby to each other. The Earth and moon observationally match this.

Your surface scratches, show me the numbers... you measured it? how? using google map? did you go out there with a tape measure? how do you know from your own claim that the masons, illuminarti etc are controlling information, why would they let google give you evidence for it?

See how your own stipulations make absolutely no logical sense?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Show you as in bring the samples from the moon over to your house? I can't do that but I can post a picture:

Not necessary, I accept your linked information, except for one area.

I believe it is a stretch to label it a basalt from Lava, but similar no doubt. I'm certain if we were able to recover "Bed Rock" from undisturbed areas it would be the same material. As I understand the structure of the moon is a 3 mile deep, correct me if I'm wrong, layer of dust and meteorite debris, on top of a 20 mile deep crust.

The deep crust appears to be virtually impenetrable as seen in the odd meteorite impact sites. There are very large impact sites that do not penetrate to a depth that one would have expected. Copernicus crater is an example.

This is the explanation given for the "Dark Circles"

Impact basins are very large impact structures that are more than 300 kilometers (185 miles) in diameter. The largest impact basin on the Moon is 2500 kilometers (1550 miles) in diameter and more than 12 kilometers (7 miles) deep. Large impact basins are also found on other planets, including Mars and Mercury.

The large circular dark areas in the image are impact basins, created as huge impactors struck the Moon. Lava later flowed across the low floors of the basins, giving them a darker, smoother appearance than the surrounding, brighter highlands. The dark basins can be seen by the naked eye.

Shaping the Planets: Impact Cratering

The problem with this theory is, they are on the side of the moon that faces the Earth. The "Impactor's" would have had to magically gone right through the Earth, to impact the moon. I suppose one could then say, well, the moon faced the opposite direction to be impacted, playing ping pong back and forth. Not very logical. The only other location on the "Dark Side" that could be construed to be one of these dark basins, Mare Moscoviense, is too irregular, non circular, and has some odd geometry going on. So I wouldn't put it into the same class as these Impact basins. Some of these theorized meteorites were 1500 miles wide. And to hit the moon they would have had to do the "Magic Bullet" thing, if you know what I mean. Or, the moon was elsewhere when it was hit and entered orbit around the earth, with the basins already there. But if that were the case the entire Thea wack theory goes right out the window. And for me, it already has...

Back to the Basalt Rock. You accidentally left out the part that, that rock contained 10 times the amount of Titanium. Your link. Did you know that, that rock, also looks like, slag?

Observational Science gives us a better look.

“Looking up at the Moon, its surface appears painted with shades of gray – at least to the human eye. But with the right instruments, the Moon can appear colorful,” said Robinson, a professor in ASU’s School of Earth and Space Exploration in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. “The maria appear reddish in some places and blue in others. Although subtle, these color variations tell us important things about the chemistry and evolution of the lunar surface. They indicate the titanium and iron abundance, as well as the maturity of a lunar soil.”

The moon is filled with titanium ores – prospect for mining colony in the future

LRO finds moon filled with titanium ores

And now this..

The moon, that giant lump of rock that has fascinated poets and scientists alike, may be about to get even more interesting. A new analysis of isotopes found in lunar minerals challenges the prevailing view of how Earth's nearest neighbor formed.

Previous research has established that the oxygen isotope composition of lunar samples is indistinguishable from that of Earth.

"I think the general idea of having an impact forming a disk and this disk then forming a moon is probably right," he says, "but this paper shows us that we still don't understand exactly what the mechanism is, and there is a lot of work to be done in that field."

Moon Rock Analysis Casts Doubt on Lunar Origins

And in that, he is correct. A Hell of a lot of work.

And again..

The moon remains drier than any desert on Earth, but the water is said to exist on the moon in very small quantities. One ton of the top layer of the lunar surface would hold about 32 ounces of water, researchers said. ?

"The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth,"

It's Official: Water Found on the Moon

Where did this water and oxygen on the moon come from? The Earth. How did it get there? Contact.

How was the moon created? Obviously by looking at your rock, heat was involved, but what kind of heat and what source for the heat remains to be seen.

Your source"

One difference is that the Apollo 11 basalts contain much more of the element titanium than is usually found in basalts on Earth. The basalts found at the Apollo 11 landing site range in age from 3.6 to 3.9 billion years and were formed from at least two chemically different magma sources

Again, magma, or heat source, is the question. I would have to take their word on the time line.

To me, the moon rock appears to be slag like, as in processed ore. Only the ore was left in the slag, in place. The titanium content must show that what ever the genesis is of the moon, is, it isn't Earth.

The only evidence presented in this diamond is, some diamonds are flawed. Theory can not be used to prove another theory.

So, how do you get a 1500 mile wide meteorite to pass through the earth, without leaving a hole?

How did water get on the moon... well... it formed with it on, in a similar manner in which the Earth acquired its water.

They do not need to contact in order to transfer water. Should it be the case, well, where is the moons atmosphere? it would of dragged some with it too... and you know if you knew anything at all about how water behaves against vacuum, the water would be located mostly in the dark contact points. Not in some craters where the sun doesn't shine.

Oh and guess what? There is water on Venus too... must of contacted yes?
Oh and water on Mars too!!! must of contacted also yes?

Also love your side stepping of valid evidence. "Oh i mean its rock that looks like lava but, you know, its not bedrock so who knows" Sorry but... one word... NOT GOOD ENOUGH. So im still waiting for your measurements and comparisons?

You also realize that Titanium is kinda everywhere, its existence can be explained as being produced in the supernova that seeded the galaxy where the Sun formed. While true that the moon appears to have an abundance on the surface compared to the Earth, but the two objects have very different surfaces, and undergo completely different geology, that being that the Moon is barren and mostly inactive as far as observations appear and the Earth, rich with geology and processing of chemical oxides etc thanks to our atmosphere. The moon is also unprotected from primary cosmic ray bombardment, which will cause the appearance or generation of isotopes that are different to that on the Earth Naturally. I really don't accept the Titanium is a smocking gun for anything... again, show me the evidence. Thus far you have just said TITANIUM! and misquoted a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually support your claim.


How do you get a 1500km meteor to pass through the earth without leaving a hole? Who said anything like that happened? And you also don't appear to understand that such an event would involve a tremendous amount of fluid dynamics. Smashing rocks together... creates heat, you know this yes?

a reply to: oldcarpy

It was NOT based upon observation, obviously. He did not "proclaim" the Earth to be hollow, either, he put it out as a theory. This was not Observational Science at all. Unless you can tell me I am wrong and cite what "observations" he might have made?

Actually it Was Hally and Newton who suggested it. Using Math.

Newton’s Lunar Density Estimate

Three hundred years ago in 1692, an article by Edmond Halley proposed that the Earth was hollow.(1) Its theory was based on the value of lunar relative density given by Isaac Newton. The first edition of Newton’s Principia (1687) found that “... the mass of the Moon will be to the mass of the Earth as 1 to 26, approximately”, citing the relative densities of Moon to Earth as 9 to 5.(2) This value of lunar relative mass was in excess by a factor of three, as the true mass ratio is 1:81. Arguably the most significant error in the Principia’s Book III, it left an ultra-dense Moon circling our Earth.(3) Edmond Halley simply invoked these figures: “Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated the Moon to be more solid than our Earth, as 9 to 5; why may we not then suppose four ninths of our globe to be cavity?”(4) It is remarkable that so erroneous a figure, having such unlikely implications, could be thus presented without need for further justification. Halley’s theory appeared as the first significant deduction to be drawn from the Principia.

THE HOLLOW WORLD OF EDMOND HALLEY

And it was Leonhard Euler who confirmed the math.

Leonhard Euler was a Swiss mathematician and physicist. He has produced a large portion of modern mathematical terminology and notation, more specifically the notion of mathematical function. He is considered to be one the greatest mathematicians of all time, and has approximately one thousand publications (7).

Instead of Inner Earth consisting of concentric shells, Euler proposed that Earth was completely hollow(8)(9), with a six-hundred mile diameter sun in the center, similar to what Halley had proposed (central sun). The hollow interior he said, could be reached through holes at the North and South Poles, which if they exist today, are blocked from Google Earth, hidden and classified. Euler proposed that this central Sun provided life to the advanced civilizations that lived there.

Mind Blowing Research Suggests That Earth Could Actually Be Hollow

It amazes me how some people can be so emotional over, nothing? Either the moon is hollow, or its not. Either the Earth is hollow, or its not. Either there is a secret society, or not. Why get emotional? Why try to manipulate peoples opinions with Emotions??? Completely illogical, unless......... you have a secret your trying to hide.......

a reply to: oldcarpy

It was NOT based upon observation, obviously. He did not "proclaim" the Earth to be hollow, either, he put it out as a theory. This was not Observational Science at all. Unless you can tell me I am wrong and cite what "observations" he might have made?

Actually it Was Hally and Newton who suggested it. Using Math.

Newton’s Lunar Density Estimate

Three hundred years ago in 1692, an article by Edmond Halley proposed that the Earth was hollow.(1) Its theory was based on the value of lunar relative density given by Isaac Newton. The first edition of Newton’s Principia (1687) found that “... the mass of the Moon will be to the mass of the Earth as 1 to 26, approximately”, citing the relative densities of Moon to Earth as 9 to 5.(2) This value of lunar relative mass was in excess by a factor of three, as the true mass ratio is 1:81. Arguably the most significant error in the Principia’s Book III, it left an ultra-dense Moon circling our Earth.(3) Edmond Halley simply invoked these figures: “Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated the Moon to be more solid than our Earth, as 9 to 5; why may we not then suppose four ninths of our globe to be cavity?”(4) It is remarkable that so erroneous a figure, having such unlikely implications, could be thus presented without need for further justification. Halley’s theory appeared as the first significant deduction to be drawn from the Principia.

THE HOLLOW WORLD OF EDMOND HALLEY

And it was Leonhard Euler who confirmed the math.

Leonhard Euler was a Swiss mathematician and physicist. He has produced a large portion of modern mathematical terminology and notation, more specifically the notion of mathematical function. He is considered to be one the greatest mathematicians of all time, and has approximately one thousand publications (7).

Instead of Inner Earth consisting of concentric shells, Euler proposed that Earth was completely hollow(8)(9), with a six-hundred mile diameter sun in the center, similar to what Halley had proposed (central sun). The hollow interior he said, could be reached through holes at the North and South Poles, which if they exist today, are blocked from Google Earth, hidden and classified. Euler proposed that this central Sun provided life to the advanced civilizations that lived there.

Mind Blowing Research Suggests That Earth Could Actually Be Hollow

It amazes me how some people can be so emotional over, nothing? Either the moon is hollow, or its not. Either the Earth is hollow, or its not. Either there is a secret society, or not. Why get emotional? Why try to manipulate peoples opinions with Emotions??? Completely illogical, unless......... you have a secret your trying to hide.......

a reply to: ErosA433

So im still waiting for your measurements and comparisons?

When you explain to me how a 1500 mile diameter impactor can go threw the earth to impact the moon, and not leave a really big hole, Ill show you which dark spot stopped the earths rotation.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
You seem to pick on a lot of details which don't seem to support your claims.

Yes the titanium content is different but that doesn't change the fact it's basalt. So are you arguing it should be different, or it should be the same? I can't tell. It would be easy enough to say it's different because Theia was a different planet, and according to the link you posted the giant impact hypothesis says a lot of Theia should have ended up on the moon so that would explain it.

But it's not that simple. I think a better answer is probably that the basalt on the moon originated from magma oceans billions of years ago, at which time there might have also been magma oceans on earth but there are no longer any magma oceans on earth. How much various proportions of titanium in the magma make it to the surface depends on conditions which could be influenced by whether the lava comes from a magma ocean or comes out through much smaller openings as typically happens on modern day earth. If we had samples of basalt from magma oceans from Earth billions of years ago, I would expect to see a more similar titanium content distribution.

The titanium content of lunar mare basalts Page 5:

So, high-Ti magmas might form more easily than other mare basalts source regions, but their migration to the surface is more sluggish than lower Ti basalts.

Opportunities for migration to the surface might be more plentiful in magma oceans which existed billions of years ago, compared to more recent basalts which did not come from magma oceans billions of years ago.

Some of the problems with the giant impact hypothesis you referenced in that wired article may have been solved. Contrary to the odd tangent you were pursuing with the titanium difference which you made a big deal out of, you then post an article contradicting that saying there isn't enough difference, it's nearly the same, so what point are you even trying to make by contradicting yourself except to show you really don't know what you're getting at yourself?

www.wired.com...

The proportion of 50Ti to 47Ti is another good indicator of whether a sample came from Earth, and, just as with oxygen, the researchers found the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system. Zhang explains that it's unlikely Earth could have exchanged titanium gas with the magma disk because titanium has a very high boiling point. "The oxygen isotopic composition would be very easily homogenized because oxygen is much more volatile, but we would but we would expect homogenizing titanium to be very difficult."

So the moons titanium is too similar to Earths according to your source, so why are you making a big deal about the variation in basalt samples? This is logically inconsistent.

Anyway, to explain the similarity another research article was published since that wired article:

Moon's Birth May Have Vaporized Most of Earth, Study Shows

In 2001, scientists began discovering that terrestrial and lunar rocks had a lot in common: the two bodies possess many of the same chemical isotopes. (Isotopes of an element have different numbers of neutrons from each other. These subvarieties are identified by different numbers; for example, potassium-39 or potassium-40). Isotopes can act as geologic fingerprints, because prior work has suggested that planetary bodies that formed in different parts of the solar system generally have different isotopic compositions.

These discoveries threw the giant-impact hypothesis into crisis because previous computer simulations of the collision predicted that 60 to 80 percent of the material that coalesced into the moon came from Theia rather than Earth. The likelihood that Theia happened to have virtually the same isotopic composition as Earth seemed extremely unlikely.

At first, scientists thought more precise isotopic analyses might help resolve this "isotopic crisis." However, more accurate measurements of oxygen isotopes reported in 2016 only helped confirm this problem, said study lead author Kun Wang, a geochemist now at Washington University in St. Louis...

Another model, proposed in 2015, suggests that a high-energy impact created the moon, one so violent that it vaporized Theia as well as most of Earth, including the young planet's mantle region (the layer just above the core). This dense vapor then formed an atmosphere that filled a space more than 500 times bigger than today's Earth. Much of this material would fall back onto the Earth as it cooled, but in addition, some of the debris formed the moon...

"I'm kind of surprised that the new model [proposed in 2015] fits the data the best," Wang said. Still, "we had no expectation which model we were going to support," he said.

So a higher degree of vaporization than previous models presumed seems to solve the similarity problems. Still, I can't completely rule out that the impactor named "Theia" might have possibly had a similar composition itself though researchers consider this unlikely, but maybe not impossible. They would like to find a better explanation and perhaps they have found one.

One key point you should be aware of is that after the moon formed, earthshine (infrared radiation coming from earth) likely played a key role in why the maria are much more abundant on the side of the moon facing the Earth, as explained here:

Why the Moon's 'Dark Side' Has No Face

The moon, being much smaller than Earth, cooled more quickly. Since the moon and Earth were tidally locked early on, the still-hot Earth — more than 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit (2,500 degrees Celsius) — would have cooked the near side of the moon, keeping it molten. On the other hand, the far side of the moon would have cooled, albeit slowly.

The difference in temperature between the moon's halves influenced the formation of its crust. The lunar crust possesses high concentrations of aluminum and calcium, elements that are very hard to vaporize.

"When rock vapor starts to cool, the very first elements that snow out are aluminum and calcium," study co-author Steinn Sigurdsson of Penn State said in a statement.

Aluminum and calcium would have more easily condensed in the atmosphere on the colder far side of the moon. Eventually, these elements combined with silicates in the mantle of the moon to form minerals known as plagioclase feldspars, making the crust of the far side about twice as thick as that of the near side.

"Earthshine, the heat of Earth soon after the giant impact, was a really important factor shaping the moon," Roy said.

When collisions from asteroids or comets blasted the moon's surface, they could punch through the near side's crust to generate maria. In contrast, impacts on the far side's thicker crust failed to penetrate deeply enough to cause lava to well up, instead leaving the far side of the moon leaving the far side of the moon with a surface of valleys, craters and highlands, but almost no maria.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: ErosA433

So im still waiting for your measurements and comparisons?

When you explain to me how a 1500 mile diameter impactor can go threw the earth to impact the moon, and not leave a really big hole, Ill show you which dark spot stopped the earths rotation.

If you are assuming all impacts are directly perpendicular to the surface, I can see why you might think this way, but in fact most impacts do not come straight down but occur at some angle relative to the surface. Here is the Earth and moon to scale today, where the Earth can hardly block any impactors from striking the moon due to the relatively small angular size of the Earth at its distance from the moon:



When the moon formed it would have been much closer to Earth, but it had to form outside the Roche limit, so impactors could strike at many other angles besides "straight down", and would not have to pass through the Earth to impact the moon's surface. Sure the Earth may have blocked some impacts, but certainly not all. It hardly blocks any today, relatively speaking, and looking at that image shows why.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
It is not the composition, the spectral differences, it is almost indistinguishable, the difference is, its 10 times the amount. If the moon came from Earth the ratios should be similar. they are not. Besides, on Earth Titanium is mined from

Titanium chiefly is obtained from the minerals rutile, ilmenite and rarely from anatase (beta-titanium dioxide). Other titanium-bearing minerals include perovskite, sphene and titanite. These minerals resist weathering and are concentrated in placers and wind-blown sand deposits. Titanium is mined in Australia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Russia and Japan. Ilmenite is a common mineral on the Moon. Any future settlements on the Moon would likely use titanium as a primary building material.

One of its chief attributes, is it high melting temperature. Even though it is found in lave, the amounts are minute. Titanium

The melting point of Titanium is 3048 F. Temps for lava are 1,292 to 2,192 °F The boiling temp for Titanium is 5948 F Now if your saying Lunar Lava has a very high Titanium content, then your saying the interior of the moon is 10 times the amount than on earth. You would expect similar amounts if the moon was produced from the earth. The ratios must be similar. In fact, all the minerals should be similar in volume and ratio.

So, why are these not seen in moon rocks?

Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have not been found on the Moon

How Do We Know That It's a Rock From the Moon?

Again, the moon is 2159 miles in diameter. Are you expecting me to believe the moon could withstand a impact of a 1500 mile wide rock??? Traveling at god knows what speed??? It would have been cut in half!!! This, is sheer Lunacy!!!
There are at least 13 of these impactor basins on the side that faces us. 13 times the Lunacy!!! Absolutely unbelievable!

Now I know what real mythology looks like!

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Arbitrageur
It is not the composition, the spectral differences, it is almost indistinguishable, the difference is, its 10 times the amount. If the moon came from Earth the ratios should be similar. they are not.

Taken as a whole, the ratios are fairly similar. You're singling out some exceptionally high amounts as if they represent the moon when that's not the case. Most of the moon basalts do not have such high TiO2. Look at the graphical representation in the link I posted previously on lunar basalts. Only the green areas are higher than typically seen on Earth, the rest of the moon's basalts fall in a similar range to Earth's.

The titanium content of lunar mare basalts Pages 4-7

FIG. 2. Galileo SSI nearside image (resolution 1-2 km) that shows only mare regions; all other geologic units have been masked. The TiOz distribution shown in the histogram (Fig. Ib) is apparent in the image; very low (7.5 wt% Ti02) maria constitute only 5% of the lunar maria.

Yes there are exceptional regions but they constitute only a small fraction of the moon's surface thus don't represent the entire moon. The paper explores some possible mechanisms which might explain the variations seen but they don't presume the moon has a vastly different TiO2 content, because clearly such abundance is not reflected in the great majority of the lunar basalts.

Here are some TiO2 abundances in China, from a little under 1% to a little over 6%, a pretty good range match for most of the moon that's not green in the above graphic.

A reappraisal of the high-Ti and low-Ti classification of basalts and petrogenetic linkage between basalts and mafic–ultramafic intrusions in the Emeishan Large Igneous Province, SW China

Furthermore this paper explains that the Tio2 abundances found in the samples don't reflect the abundances in the source but relate to other mechanisms (as I suggested earlier).

neither Ti abundance nor Ti/Y ratios in basalts can reflect the nature of their mantle source. Moreover, the different types of mafic–ultramafic intrusions in the ELIP cannot simply be attributed to be genetically related special types of basalts, either high-Ti or low-Ti basalts. It is likely that they are merely the cumulus phases, i.e. chamber or conduit of the basaltic lavas.

So in other words, you're totally barking up the wrong tree with your claims that these variations reflect source composition. The variations instead reflect certain mechanisms described in both this article and the lunar basalt article.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Again, the moon is 2159 miles in diameter. Are you expecting me to believe the moon could withstand a impact of a 1500 mile wide rock??? Traveling at god knows what speed??? It would have been cut in half!!! This, is sheer Lunacy!!!

An impact basin may be 1500 miles wide, but not the impactor itself.

For example, the impactor that created the almost-1600-mile-wide South Pole Aitken basin is thought to have been about 120 miles wide. It is also thought that it hit with a (relatively) glancing blow, with an impact angle of about 30 degrees.

Another example is the Imbium Basin, which is about 700 to 750 miles across, depending on where you measure. Estimates of the size of that impactor vary dies to angle of impact and other somditions. but it is thought to have been 50 to 150 miles across. Here is an article that is suggesting an impactor on the larger end of that range:

/news.brown.edu...


The Oceanus Procellarum basin is about 1600 miles wide and is believed to have possibly been formed by impact (there are also non-impact theories for its origin). However, if it was formed by impact the impactor again would have been much smaller than the basin's diameter. In addition, Oceanus Procellarum is also believed to have formed (by impact or otherwise) early in the Moon's history when a large portion of the Moon was still magma, which may have resulted in greater plasticity of the impact zone.

It should be pointed out that data from the GRAIL mission seems to be pointing towards a non-impact origin for Oceanus Procellarum.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Flat Earth

This idea is gaining popularity with myraid number kooks and cranks. The earth is a globe and always has been. If you happen to fly a plane only with reference to the attitude indicator, the altitude increases as the earth surface backs away, indicating its curved.

Hollow Earth

It is harder to debunk. There is no proof whatsoever except some legends. It is were true can you imagine a 4200 miles of atmosphere above you at the centre. the atmospheric pressure there will be close to 300lbs/sqin. Now what kind of flesh and blood can survive there, certainly not the surface dwellers who are used to 15lbs/sqin of atmospheric pressure.
So if there are inhabitants in the hollow earth, they cannot survive on the outer surface. The trees in the hollow earth will be certainly huge

You're forgetting the 3rd option. We are the hollow earth inhabitants. It's just that the Earth isn't a sphere in space, the universe is probably a dense void of rock, and God hollowed out a sphere in that. Spherical excess via cartographic methods proves the Earth is a sphere... it just doesn't prove which way the Earth curves, Up or down. If light bends, it curves up. If light is straight, it curves down. Check out this guy on Youtube. Using proper levels of refraction over an observer INSIDE a concave earth, it creates the illusion of being on the OUTSIDE of the Earth.

youtu.be...

The path of light bending up into the center of the Earth above our heads is what causes the ship to fall below the horizon. Your line of sight curves up faster then the Earth in front of you, so what you see falsely appear to dip below the horizon... It's not letting me embed images so here's a link to the picture of what i'm describing.

welcome-to-concave-earth-forum.70389.x6.nabble.com...

Your line of sight meets the Celestial sphere at 90deg, this is why the constellations maintain shape as the celestial sphere spins above it. It's filled with water. Stars are sonoluminescence. Look up star in a jar.

There is a mechanism of nature that allows you to bend the path of light, it's called wave cancellation. If there is a fractal resonating structure at the center of the earth above us, it would cancel tons of waves, causing a suction effect. This cancellation is why NIGHT exists when the sun isn't above us.

The planets are real, they're just small. Nasa is partially real, they just orbiting inner-earth above us. This is why they can fake it so well. Lord Steven christ has found huge anomalies with satellites.

youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

Eric Jorgensen

a reply to: HorrorRoach

We are the hollow earth inhabitants.

Yes, another way of looking at it. But I suspect, ONLY, those who emotionally try to control the thoughts of others.

The Majority of US reside on the outside of the planet where we can see "Hally's Comet" every so often, and Sun Rises and Sun Sets, and Moon Rises and Moon Sets, along with all the Stars following their celestial courses..

Enki's Scribe, Endubsar, gave us a semi true story, with limitations, and a "Spherical Earth". Enlil's scribe, Enock, gave us fairy tales and mythology, and the beginnings of a "Flat Earth". Neither, gave us the truth of Edin!

There is a class of human beings that are highly intelligent and have been raised to believe they are of "Royal" blood, and that "They" can do as they wish with the general population, feed the general population any kind of crap that will be accepted. It is the real racism! But what this class of "Human" Beings do not understand, or completely ignore by choice is their whole family. They are actually a sub species who are only 30,000 years old but yet they claim the earth covertly, and disrespect their "Other" family members, elders. They are the children of disobedience. Half of their bloodline comes from a family that came here and raped and pillaged our world, and that is the half they follow. The shame of it all...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The Oceanus Procellarum basin is about 1600 miles wide and is believed to have possibly been formed by impact (there are also non-impact theories for its origin).

Oh, oh really, do share. I wonder what a nuke would look like going off on the moon...

It should be pointed out that data from the GRAIL mission seems to be pointing towards a non-impact origin for Oceanus Procellarum.

Rectangular magnetic anomaly's? Hmmmm, base frame grid work??

a reply to: HorrorRoach

Lol this is the first time ive heard of this kooky theory

Whether it's flat, round or concave, it's nothing but light. Light is a expression of love. Love is a creation. Creation is an expression. I cannot say anymore on the matter, or Anti-matter...here we go again lol

It's prespective that causes such conflict. Expanding perspective helps.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

It's all very messy to be fair. Lyrans, Sirians, Orions.. then we have the Peladians, Nubirans, Zeta rectulans etc
Quite resonable to assume a significant influence to all from outside Sector 9.

One part of one arm of one Galaxy in one Cluster.. it goes on and on and on and on....

There is no space, there is no time. There is no You or they. There is one.

(perhaps more than One)

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

It's all very messy to be fair. Lyrans, Sirians, Orions.. then we have the Peladians, Nubirans, Zeta rectulans etc
Quite resonable to assume a significant influence to all from outside Sector 9.

One part of one arm of one Galaxy in one Cluster.. it goes on and on and on and on....

There is no space, there is no time. There is no You or they. There is one.

(perhaps more than One)

I submit to the "One", on the other side of this life. In as far as playing the "Who is Really Who" game, you are either for Humanity, or, against! And as long as "Beings" inhabit the flesh, there is the here and now. And your point might be???

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Jubei42

OP says if you fly ONLY with the reference to the artificial horizon. try this on a really calm night
Yes the auto pilot will maintain altitude when altitude mode is on

I'm not a pilot, but I'm guessing if a pilot is manually keeping his altitude the same, he/she is constantly making micro-dips. That pilot may not notice making these micro dips because it is all part of the constant manual input needed to keep the altimeter reading a constant altitude.

The Vertical Speed Indicator measures ascent, descent, and level flight. In order to maintain altitude above a spherical Earth, the VSI would indicate a constant rate of descent, and it does not.

If gravity 'pulled' planes around the curvature, at a fixed altitude, the plane still must fly in a constant descent, to follow the curvature. The VSI would indicate a descent, as before, but it actually indicates level flight....not a descent, which is required to follow a curvature.


And this alone proves that the Earth is, indeed, flat.