Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Yasai101 t1_j9riscf wrote

"he kept piling on some good points and he almost changed my views" lol if this isn't a troll post then the non existent god bless this poor kid.

63

p0ntimus t1_j9rfdn7 wrote

How do you expect to convince him otherwise when you yourself seem to be on the fence about it?

59

Yasai101 t1_j9rj0j0 wrote

Its amazing that something like this can have a fence.

40

PM_ME_A_PLANE_TICKET t1_j9rh6g5 wrote

I think I have this figured out.

There is no friend, homie here is like 14 and is embarrassed to ask on behalf of himself, so is telling this story.

55

BenZed t1_j9ribzo wrote

Evidence? Look upward.

What did your friend say that “almost convinced you”, Mr Science Enjoyer?

49

saturnsnephew t1_j9rfr40 wrote

You can't fix stupid. There is no argument in the world that will change their mind.

39

Walter-ODimm t1_j9rfwpa wrote

C’mon, man. Don’t be a moron. This isn’t even an interesting argument.

Do you honestly believe that millions of scientists throughout history and countless government officials have worked together to hide some grand truth for… reasons?

First, nothing remains a secret if more than one person knows about it. Second, why? Who benefits from such a preposterous lie? What motive would they have to trick you?

19

richardnc t1_j9rh3uf wrote

Exactly. Cui bono. Who benefits from this?

3

BeepBlipBlapBloop t1_j9rdsrg wrote

How about the fact that we've left the earth, taken pictures of it from space, and sent spacecraft millions of miles away from it? How could we do that if we were inside it?

Your friend is either willfully ignorant or messing with you.

18

YeetFleekMasterOfRap OP t1_j9reewj wrote

I think the problem is that the pictures use a fish eyed lense.

−40

darkskymatters t1_j9rh0en wrote

Wide angle lenses are used on many Low Earth Orbit spacecraft, rovers on Mars, etc. in order to fit more visual information into the frame.

If that's a major sticking point for them then you can show images from the Apollo missions, etc. You can even look up what cameras and lenses were used. If they don't think we went to the Moon, show them images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites and rover tracks.

But in all probability, your buddy doesn't really care about space, the shape of the planet, history, science, camera specifics, or anything to do with understanding nature for it's own sake. They probably just want to FEEL superior through special or hidden knowledge. As far as I know there's no remedy for that besides some form of ego death.

26

GimmyJrimble t1_j9rlqox wrote

Ah yes. Centuries of scientific study and observation is all invalidated because a certain type of camera lens exists. Why didnt the scientists think of that? /s

15

Washout22 t1_j9rqurg wrote

Everyone knows donkeykong lives inside the hollow earth.

We're on the outside.

Have you seen donkeykong? I sure haven't.

There's your evidence. ;)

3

BeepBlipBlapBloop t1_j9rf718 wrote

There's no evidence of that. That's pure speculation at best, but a better name for it would be a lie.

Fish eye lenses have a very distinct warping effect. You can tell when they are being used.

13

Bipogram t1_j9ri0h3 wrote

This is not true.

I worked (in the early 90s) on satellites for EUMETSAT, writing and testing code for the latest Meteosat constellation of remote observation craft.

The imagers did not use a 'fish eyed lense'.

The Earth, like all planets, is essentially spherical as a quick trip to the seashore can demonstrate.

9

jeremiahdotjeremiah t1_j9rdq30 wrote

You could start with his points, we weren't there.

16

YeetFleekMasterOfRap OP t1_j9re7fe wrote

He said that all of the photos of the earth were taken from a fish eyed lense.

−22

sailorlazarus t1_j9rfrgs wrote

I mean this is obviously false. A quick Google search will tell you otherwise. You can just look at live feeds from the ISS that you can tell aren't taken with a fish eye lense because the visible parts of the station aren't distorted.

Edit: hell, if you really wanted to you could buy a weather balloon and send up your own non fish eye camera to the edge of space. I wouldn't do it over the USA right now but still.

34

CrayonDelicacies t1_j9rew2m wrote

You know that’s the easiest and cheapest argument right? You can not debate someone who’s entire argument is “you’ve been lied to”.

9

penlu t1_j9rgygt wrote

Fisheye lenses produce a distortion that makes straight lines appear to curve away from the center. Your friend's argument is perhaps that pictures of a curved horizon are just demonstrating this artifact. Indeed, many hobbyist rockets flown with a GoPro on board show this behavior while not reaching enough altitude for curvature to be reasonably visible.

When horizon curvature is due to a lens effect, then when the camera pans such that the horizon crosses the center of the image, we expect the horizon's curvature to switch as well. But there are plenty of photos and videos taken from enough altitude that demonstrate that this doesn't occur. So at least these are not showing curvature just due to use of a fisheye lens.

Now perhaps those cameras were purpose-made so that they bend everything the same direction. Or maybe the pictures are photoshopped! Or maybe you're just looking at the screen wrong! You can come up with an infinite number of reasons not to believe in picture evidence. In fact, you can come up with an infinite number of reasons not to believe any evidence at all. It's just that when you go to do any activity that actually requires taking into account the curvature of the earth, you will be wrong.

Many of these activities are hard to do, for instance: building a GPS receiver, navigating a ship across an ocean, or sending a spacecraft to the moon. But there are easier things that immediately require spherical trigonometry, such as: predicting time of sunrise and sunset for any position on earth and any time of year, or predicting which stars will be visible in the sky, or where the moon will be. To carry out these calculations and still believe the earth is anything but near-spherical requires willful misimagination.

Perhaps a better question is: suppose the images were taken with a fisheye lens. So the horizon is actually straight and not curved. But if the earth were hollow why would there be a horizon at all? In images from space, when you look at the horizon, you see the ground stop, then the sky begin, then space begin. You wouldn't see black there if the earth were hollow. So this fisheye lens claim actually rules that out. If your friend really believes all these photos are real but were taken through a fisheye lens, perhaps he should at least be arguing that the earth is flat.

I wrote all that out in case you really wanted to read a response to this fisheye lens claim. Most likely none of that will be useful for your friend. All the other commenters here are basically right: it's less likely that your friend is wrong out of ignorance (correctable with more information) than that he is pranking you or will never stop being wrong.

5

CraneDJs t1_j9rhdj3 wrote

You are the worst kind of idiot. How do you breathe?

5

AMAStudentLoanDebt t1_j9rgs6u wrote

Unless he has seen the cameras himself with his own eyes and knows how to identify fish eye lense or not, then hes just taking the word of someone who says its fisheye th same way he accuses others of taking peoples word its NOT fisheye.

2

Xyrus2000 t1_j9rl9sn wrote

That is categorically false. Using a fish eye lens creates visual distortions that anyone who has had any experience with optics would be able to pick up on.

Eratosthenes proved the Earth was round over 2000 years ago and even measured its circumference by putting a stick in the ground. You can do the exact same thing he did, but I doubt anything like science or math is going to sway your friend.

2

Crazylevan t1_j9rtqi4 wrote

Apart from this, what other points did he make?

2

cippopotomas t1_j9reeh0 wrote

>However, he kept piling on some good points and he almost changed my views

Doesn't sound like it matters, only a matter of time til someone else comes along and has you drinking poison Kool aid.

15

YeetFleekMasterOfRap OP t1_j9rejs1 wrote

Yeah I want to know why the Earth ( probably ) is not hollow so that I can explain it to him.

−12

Infernalism t1_j9rex9z wrote

That's not how it works.

You bring us his arguments in favor of a hollow earth and we show you how they're not correct.

17

ElderWandOwner t1_j9rhg5x wrote

It's hard to give a proper counter point to something as stupid as "the earth is hollow because of fish eye lenses". The fact that you can see space and stars obviously debunks the claim. I'm now very curious how this convo went down. Assuming this isn't trolling because it sure feels like it.

5

Zmemestonk t1_j9rhjx5 wrote

You said two things. Earth is hallow and we live inside the hallow area. So if we lived in a cave what is space? Literally you can look up and see we are not in a cave we’re floating around something. Second we’ve dug as deeply as can be reached and there’s always more dirt/stone. We’ve take what would be equivalent to an X-ray of the earth. By sending radio waves through the earth to different points we can measure the thickness of the earth. This is how they estimate time for a volcano to erupt by detecting when magma chambers are filling. You can also measure the volume of earth and compare it’s motion and gravitational effects to see if they equal out. Lots of ways to prove it

2

coffeestrainer000 t1_j9rfhh3 wrote

The fact that your beliefs are so unstable and you’re so easily manipulated that you’ve been halfway convinced the earth 🌎 is goddamn hollow should be cause for extreme concern for your own psychological well-being. If you’re susceptible to something as whacko as that then any random demagogue can make you believe anything.

14

good-mcrn-ing t1_j9rf663 wrote

How far can you two travel? Does the friend trust someone who lives at a different latitude? You could observe the changing tilt of the moon and which stars are visible from where. That's enough to demonstrate why a globe explains the most.

10

KillaWatt84 t1_j9rfca3 wrote

How about being able to see other planets through an amateur telescope and even some of their moons? Or how would satellites work? Or why the hugest undertaking ever to cover up the fact we are inside a planet when it would have just been part of our natural history...

Lots of Logical disconnects in the hollow earth theory. Especially the fact that It probably would collapse under it own weight...

3

BeepBlipBlapBloop t1_j9rgfvx wrote

How would we be able to predict observable things like solar eclipses years, decades, or even centuries in advance if our model of the solar system was not accurate?

How does your "friend's" theory account for those things?

3

Accurate-Summer-5167 t1_j9rib4f wrote

Did you and your friend have to leave your classroom and go to a separate math class by any chance?

3

MaximusZacharias t1_j9rn2sd wrote

What good points did your friend give that nearly made you change your mind?

3

ArtMartinezArtist t1_j9ro0di wrote

If you consider the atmosphere of the earth as the outer boundary technically we live in the hollow? I dunno I’m stretching here…

1

DreamJD89 t1_j9rgkvu wrote

There was a group of followers in the early 1800's who did believe we were living inside what is called a Dyson sphere (I'm gathering that's what your friend is describing right?) If that's the case then what about the planets we can actually see? They'd have to be contained within this sphere as well if that was the case, and the un8verse itself would be within this sphere that is earth.

We know that's just not true.

2

same5220 t1_j9rjgbu wrote

Could you be a little more specific about when you knew this person

2

llynglas t1_j9rupc7 wrote

Sadly I'm not sure any social services help with massive delusion.

2

GreenAdvance t1_j9rg8i9 wrote

You can't argue with logic against willful ignorance. That wasn't a scientific argument.

As for factual evidence, go outside and look up.

Edit: reading OPs other replies, I think they are the "friend" in this scenario and looking for ways to convince others we live in hollow earth.

1

infinitejetpack t1_j9rh56v wrote

Would be interested to hear how hollow earth nonsense accommodates the motion of the sun, the stars, and the planets; how it explains observable redshift of galaxies millions or billions of light years away from us (even an amateur can measure this); why a shadow is shorter or longer depending on longitude in a way that correlates with us living on the outside (not the inside) of what is essentially (although not exactly) a sphere; or how one can easily measure the curvature of the sphere using a laser and detector a mile or two apart.

None of these have anything to do with fisheye lenses.

This is just scratching the surface. There are tons of real world phenomena that just don’t work with a hollow earth.

1

tiamat6 t1_j9rhcmg wrote

You could tell him to check out the Kola Well. They drilled 40,000 ft into the earth.

"Much information comes from such holes; for example, the bottom of this hole was about 370°F (190°C).

The structure of the deep Earth is studied today by means that are more indirect. Perhaps the most effective method has been from studying earthquake or seismic waves as they move from one sensing station to another. These natural waves allow us to see inside the Earth as they react to various layers, much as x-rays or MRI’s allow us to view inside the human body." https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2003Apr.cfm#:~:text=The%20deepest%20hole%20by%20far,7km%20(about%2023%2C000ft).

So we know for a fact the earth isn't hollow.

1

slpybeartx t1_j9ri7bg wrote

Just walk away. There is no convincing someone who is that far away from reality. You’ll waste your time and energy better spent elsewhere.

1

BakeNShake52 t1_j9rimrz wrote

Just a little perspective, the outermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere known as the exosphere is said to extend up to an altitude of 10,000km above the surface of Earth, while the radius of the earth is only around 6,400km. In that sense, if the exosphere is to be considered the outermost shell of the planet, then most of the earth is hollow, aside from a “core” consisting of the crust down to inner core which we humans can stand on without falling through the atmosphere (on average). The volume of the earth is V = (4π(6400km)^3 )/3 = 1.0868 trillion cubic km, while the volume of the atmosphere extending through the outermost part of the exosphere would be V = (4π(10000km)^3 )/3 - (4π(6400km)^3 )/3 = 3.090724 trillion cubic km, nearly 3 times the volume of the crusty/corey part. Somehow, use that to approximate the entire earth as a point source, and poof, your friend is right!

1

Sufficient-Head5823 t1_j9riu82 wrote

Scientific argument? Your friend is a moron and really not worthy of a response.

1

ec6412 t1_j9rkfgs wrote

Just look up. Do you see any other part or the inside of the earth?

1

MsEmptiness t1_j9rky3y wrote

Buy one of these, and make your friend look at the moon through it. https://a.co/d/2N0cqI1

If that isn’t enough, then do this experiment:

You and a friend go to different locations very far apart, preferably on opposite sides of the Earth. You can both use a sundial to measure the angle of the sun's shadow at the exact same time of day. By comparing the angle of the shadow at each location, you can see that the angles are different, which can only be explained by the curvature of the Earth. If the Earth were hollow or flat, the angle of the sun's shadow would be the same at both locations.

For example, if you and your friend are in New York and Sydney, respectively, and you both use a sundial at 12:00 pm local time, you'll see that the angle of the sun's shadow on your sundial is different from the angle of the sun's shadow on your friend's sundial. This is because the sun is hitting the two locations at different angles, which can only be explained by the Earth being round.

For a more detailed experiment:

  • Choose a location: You and your friend should choose two locations that are far apart from each other, preferably on opposite sides of the Earth.
  • Set up your sundials: At the exact same time of day, both of you should set up your sundials in a clear and unobstructed spot, making sure that the sundial is accurately calibrated to the local time.
  • Observe the shadow: Observe the shadow cast by the sundial's gnomon and make note of the angle of the shadow with respect to the dial. If you're using a vertical sundial, measure the angle between the gnomon and the dial. If you're using a horizontal sundial, measure the angle between the gnomon and the ground.
  • Compare the angles: Using your video call, compare the angles of the shadows on your sundials. If the angles are different, this indicates that the sun is at different positions in the sky at the two locations. This can only be explained by the curvature of the Earth.
  • Conclusion: The fact that the angles are different means that the sun is hitting the two locations at different angles, which would not be possible if the Earth were flat or hollow. The only explanation for the difference is that the Earth is round.

It's important to note that this method assumes that the sundials are accurate, the local time is the same at both locations, and the weather conditions are similar at both locations. However, if these assumptions are met, this method can be an effective way to prove the Earth's roundness using only sundials and a video call.

1

Ok-Cut849 t1_j9rl4dk wrote

Learn how to AP people you can travel to the galaxy and look at it instead of using telescopes

1

The102935thMatt t1_j9rleyh wrote

I need convincing too, the only way is to send me into space. Like the ISS or something. Then I will change my ways.

Or a trip to the moon and back! Im not picky.

1

samhain2000 t1_j9rlt5w wrote

Find smarter friends

I've had friends believe the Hollow earth BS, the battle of the antarctic, etc.

I have different friends now.

1

Odins_Viking t1_j9rmf0l wrote

You need better friends… or at least friends with IQs over 60…

1

BeginTheResist t1_j9rmu06 wrote

I think you should make a list of all these "good points" he has made.

1

bgplsa t1_j9rp8o4 wrote

Since you’re a science enjoyer you should start off with the scientific method. What is a consequence of living inside a hollow earth that one could test that isn’t better explained by another model such as those currently used? Seriously, think this through. Be aware though that there are subtleties that crop up in every investigation that will complicate finding the correct answers. Even Einstein had to deal with this, he continually published the answers he found to questions that seemed to disprove his claims until nobody could think of any that couldn’t be answered. That process is still going on today, scientists don’t predict the conjunctions of Jupiter’s moons or solar eclipses or the temperature of craters on the moon to prove how smart they are, they are continually observing to see if the real world disagrees with the predictions made by their models. If it ever did and they could show it with evidence that would be a history making event and any scientist would be thrilled to be the one to make such a discovery. That’s why the whole idea of science having a “narrative” is so wrong headed. If your friend can demonstrate the hollow earth better explains what we see when we look out at the universe than Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, science will agree the earth is hollow and we live inside it. Personally my money is on the other guys though.

1

Restless50 t1_j9rqfce wrote

You really think that the inside of the earth has enough room to hold all of space as we know it? The inside of the earth can’t even fit Venus dude

1

Restless50 t1_j9rtf0d wrote

Put more thought into a response, here:

If the earth was somehow hollow and the water somehow didn’t all immediately fall straight “up” to the core when at the slowest spinning parts of the planet, I should be able to look up and see Japan, let alone the fact that all of the rock and magma should fall to the center as well due to Gravity. Even light scattering through the atmosphere wouldn’t be able to hide the fact that the horizon went ‘up’ forever

If the gravity we experience here on earth was caused by centrifugal force, you would be near weightless near the poles, as things generally only spin in one direction.

If the earth was hollow, there would be no night sky, just the twinkling lights of other cities past the glowing molten core that would serve as the sun. A fascinating setting for a sci fi novel if you managed to work around everything I mentioned (man made planet perhaps?), but ultimately not plausible.

1

Enrai_Beta t1_j9ryt8v wrote

I guess one of the best ways would be watching ships sail across/approach from the horizon.

If we were on the inside of a sphere, they should seem to go up into the sky, since we are on the outside, they seem to sink below the horizon.

Watching in person should also eliminate any claims of camera trickery.

1

Lawmonger t1_j9rzh6t wrote

Why not just change the subject when he brings it up?

1

tripleint3gral t1_j9s6jan wrote

Sure, I'd be happy to help. The idea that the Earth is hollow is a long-standing pseudoscientific belief that has been thoroughly debunked by scientific evidence. Here are some points that you can use to counter your friend's arguments:

  1. Seismic Waves: Earthquakes generate seismic waves that travel through the Earth's interior. Scientists use these waves to map the Earth's interior structure. If the Earth were hollow, seismic waves would behave very differently than they do. In fact, seismic waves provide strong evidence that the Earth is a solid sphere, with a dense iron core and several layers of rock surrounding it.

  2. Gravity: Gravity is a fundamental force that is determined by the mass and density of an object. The Earth's gravity field has been extensively measured and mapped, and it is consistent with the Earth being a solid sphere with a dense core. If the Earth were hollow, the gravity field would be significantly different.

3.Plate Tectonics: Plate tectonics is the scientific theory that explains how the Earth's crust is broken into plates that move around on the Earth's surface. Plate tectonics also provides evidence that the Earth is solid, as the movement of these plates is driven by the circulation of molten rock in the Earth's mantle.

I hope these points are helpful in your debate. It's important to remember that science relies on evidence and experimentation to build understanding, and that pseudoscientific beliefs should always be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

1

DaddyCatALSO t1_j9s7jvo wrote

Koreshanity; it's a weird religion i thought had died out decades before i was born.

1

No-Assignment7129 t1_j9rf9e2 wrote

Maybe let him be with the beliefs he has as it doesn't harm him or anyone else in any context? With time maybe he might discover the answers by his own..

0

bluntisimo t1_j9re0mf wrote

Not really, I just have faith and trust the official story, I never really try to convince other people if they have some wild theories, I think it is pretty cool in a way,

I relaxed on this stuff when I realized I could not explain to anyone that the earth was not flat. If that was the official story id go... ok, and just keep living my life... E=ms2.. sure why not..lol

−3

Amaranth_devil t1_j9rfq34 wrote

Yeah, im in the same camp, kinda. I think those theories are pretty neat and would be cool if true, but i cant bring myself to believe them lol. I would love to be convinced that there is more to this existence than the official narrative.

−2

sailorlazarus t1_j9rhnyi wrote

I am genuinely curious why you feel this way.

The truth about the universe is more incredible, more complex, and more fantastical than the best written fiction. Certainly better than the garbage they shovel on tiktok.

From quantum entanglement to the warping of spacetime. From the forging of the heavier elements in the heart of ancient dying stars to the evolutionary magic that took those elements and made you and I. From how water uses the polarity of its bonds to dissolve things to how our bodies use ATP to fuel our existence. Reality is wonderous.

I will take science over any fantasy any day of the week.

5

Amaranth_devil t1_j9s026a wrote

You misunderstand me completely, I'm pretty familiar with the things you are saying. I was just stating that the theories like hollow earth, etc. Would be pretty cool if they were true. Trust me, i am well aware of how wondrous what we know of the universe is and how we've barely scratched the surface of our understanding of it.

1

bluntisimo t1_j9rgugx wrote

The thing I like most about this stuff is how it humbles me, sure I like space and science like most people but I can not understand all the math or interested in how the sausage is made, just tell me some cool shit and show me some pictures.

If people are accredited I will trust them more, if it is some youtube guy I will trust him less.

I love understanding but am also not so proud that I pretend to understand something that I can not back up.

1

VisioRama t1_j9rfj1c wrote

We are certainly not living inside of the Earth. But the Earth is very likely more hollow than we think and it's not impossible there's unknown beings living inside. Maybe even intelligent.

−9

Zmemestonk t1_j9rhzdx wrote

How? Have you ever free dived? How far can you make it before the pressure breaks an ear drum?

1

sailorlazarus t1_j9rlf2x wrote

We have very solid calculations about the density of the Earth, and those are backed by a multitude of observational data. The Earth is almost certainly not more hollow than we think.

As for life existing inside the Earth beyond the Earth's crust. It is not impossible, but it is very unlikely, and there is no evidence to suggest it is true. For example, no unknown organic compounds show up in magma samples that come from deep underground and no cells have ever been discovered.

1