The earth is a concave sphere. Both flat and globular models are wrong.

AlofRI

, , , , , !!!! (Just a few of my friends response's to your hilarity. You have a nice weekend, and, watch what you smoke. 

ErikDeriso

@AlofRI ;appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity. Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute.

ErikDeriso

You actually got a fist bump for that fallacy? @AlofRI

ErikDeriso

At least we know the two most illogical arguers now...

ZeusAres42

ErikDeriso said:

@AlofRI ;appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity. Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute.

FYI, also known as an appeal to ridicule. We can however all say things at times that might appear silly to others which put ourselves as subject to ridicule. My advice here should you accept it would be to suck it up, not to take it personally, not to get defensive and make wild accusations.

In regard to your OP it would be great if you could elaborate a bit more.

Dee

Prove me wrong. We live inside the earth

You say we live inside the earth , tell me is science close to getting any images of what’s it’s like to live outside the earth? Is it possible for humans to live on the outside or is that just a “pipe dream”?......When you put the pipe down get back to me 

ErikDeriso

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

ErikDeriso

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

MayCaesar

It seems like your view is just a different interpretation of the observations. There is a geometric transformation that takes a sphere and "inverts" everything, so everything that was inside the sphere moves to its outside, and everything on the outside moves to its inside - but it does not actually change anything from the observer's perspective.

Your model is valid, but it seems less convenient to work with than the traditional one. You have to put all the stars and other objects in the immensely huge Universe into the sphere, while everything outside the sphere is just the Earth's insides, which we will probably not get deep into within our lifetimes anyway.

ErikDeriso

MayCaesar said:

It seems like your view is just a different interpretation of the observations. There is a geometric transformation that takes a sphere and "inverts" everything, so everything that was inside the sphere moves to its outside, and everything on the outside moves to its inside - but it does not actually change anything from the observer's perspective.

Your model is valid, but it seems less convenient to work with than the traditional one. You have to put all the stars and other objects in the immensely huge Universe into the sphere, while everything outside the sphere is just the Earth's insides, which we will probably not get deep into within our lifetimes anyway.

What sets the concave earth apart from the other models is that we recognize the fact that light bends in the atmosphere constantly. 



Aside from the fact that the earth curves up instead of down