Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth?

This is why we need downvotes.

It's not "shockingly intelligent", it's an incoherent babble.

The babble is locally coherent in places, but once you take a bit broader view, it reverts to incoherency.

Going down crazy rabbit holes can be a fun anthropological expedition, but it's not an exercise in reasoning.

I don't have time to refute each of arguments, because there're too many. But consider number 5 in your list. He describes a laser experiment that he claims cannot be accounted for on the current picture of the Earth. But if you think it through, it is perfectly well accounted for.

Here's the version of the experiment performed by the two Polish guys on a lake. They place two stakes 2km apart. The stakes have lasers attached to them at 30 cm height from the surface of the water. They measure the height above the surface of the point at which the laser beams meet and find it to be 39-40cm above the surface of the water.

Wild Heretic claims, on the basis of this diagram, that on the convex Earth theory (i.e., the widely accepted theory) one should expect the height from the water at the point where the lasers meet to be smaller that the height at which the lasers are mounted. But Wild Heretic's diagram misrepresents the state of affairs. Here is a better representation I drew and associated calculations that I did, which show that the convex Earth theory correctly predicts that the laser beams would meet approximately 38cm above the surface, which is very close to the observed 39-40cm.

EDIT: As dogiv points out below, I mis-interpreted the experiment. So the argument above is not a refutation of the experiment as described.

"Refute" is usually not an objective thing - it's a social thing. You can probably prove to yourself that pi=3 is false, but if you write "pi=3" on a sheet of paper, no argument will make the ink rearrange itself to be correct.

This is one of the problems with a falsificationist idea of scientific progress, where we never prove theories true but make progress by proving them false. If evidence against a theory appears (e.g. the ability to see different stars from different parts of the earth might be thought of as "refuting" the idea of a flat earth), a proponent of that theory never has to give up on it. They can just patch the theory. Maybe light does a special little dance to make all the observations look like we're looking out at a universe, etc. If you try to refute someone, they can just refuse to be refuted and add another patch to their theory.

After doing some reading, I feel like this guy actually does a pretty admirable job of seeing open questions and admitting ignorance. For example, he doesn't know about the coriolis effect, so he calls it "a mysterious thing that happens to objects falling down mineshafts" and wonders whether it could cause an error in the readings of plumb bobs hanging down a mineshaft. Again, I think this is a good thing, though not as good as knowing about the coriolis effect before trying to understand the structure of the cosmos. The trouble seems mostly to be that he's read a lot of books that are full of shit, and believes them.

I think that Wild Heuretic doesn't actually believe in what he is writing, but he is attention whore and troll.

On the other side, if a skilled rationalist would meet moody Omega, and Omega said: you either present best possible proof of the flat earth, or I will kill you, the result may look something like this.

I really don't understand the "old maps" argument. I mean the surface of a ball is the same as the surface of a spherical hollow, so the maps should look the same anyway.

"AS ABOVE SO BELOW"

Hypothethesis, with some issues.

Without doing research or being influenced by any previously made statements or research, I began to play with the thought that we could in fact actually be living in a massive cave. The asteroids that land on our plain, actually come from the cave ceiling.

The cave is so large that we cannot with the naked eye see this ceiling. But there may be a way we actually do at a certain time- at night, when the "stars" are visible.

Down on the ground we have caves, both underground and inside of the mountains. Some of them have a cloudy, misty atmosphere on the ceiling. In some of them the cloud completely obscures the ability to see the ceiling above them.

Some of these same types of caves have glowing organisms that are dotted around the ceiling and walls. The ground is covered with bits of rock that have, with time, detached themselves from the cave ceiling and rained down on the ground below.

Given this kind of cave system that does exist in parts of the world, can cause this theory that we live in a massive cavern, be plausible.

We have clouds above. The stars are out at night (some visible in the day) Meteors raining down on our plain.

The missing links or issues to this is with the fact that we have a sun and a moon. How these fit in this whole picture is another enigma to crack.

It happens that some cavern systems get flooded with water. The water, however, doesn't always from from the rain seeping into the cavern, but comes from somewhere else under the ground.

There are many different ancient storys from countries around the world that talk about a great flood, or floods that covered most of the Earth at some point or various times in the ancient past. These storys are independant from each other because of the fact that these civilizations were not aware that there were others out there far beyond their borders. So the flood storys are likely true.

There is the notion with some pretty compelling evidence out there that all water actually comes from underground, and that we are not living in a bathtub so-to-speak with some land mass sticking out above the water's surface, and that this watery "bath-tub" has always been here.

We have a lot of hard evidence from marine archaeology where we have found ruins and cities under the ocean in the deep, and even in very deep places. This can only be the absolute proof so far that they drowned when the water from underground rose. That the water continues to rise with time, may not necessarily be due to the ice-caps melting, but could largely be that the water vents under the ocean are releasing water, though, at a very slow rate.

This could very well be used to support the Flat Earth theory further, and that our known plain is far more vast than we currently believe.

Before this water filled the cities below the, today, ocean floor, one would begin to think, "how much water below the Earth surface was there before this happened?

" About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered..."

Source: https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

If we reverse this into the 71 % of this current water when in a frozen state in snow caps and ice mountains, when thinking about these cities now under the deep ocean, we' figure that these areas were then only about 29% dry land when these cities existed where they do now.

When we look at the map of the Earth and see how it is supposedly the the largest extent covered with water. And then we have cities and other anomalies that look man-made, and that now lay at the bottom of the ocean, we cannot help but wonder where does such vast amounts of water come from?

We are talking about a lot of water here. This water could simply not have been frozen solid in vast ice reservoires anywhere near us. Such ice caps would have to reach a large number of miles into the sky to keep it in place until a time it starts to melt, run down these ice-mountains creating an ocean, filling the land below.

So, the water must likely originate from underground, and/or also comes from beyond our known plain.

I hope this didn't sound too unclear. I hope that perhaps these thoughts and ideas may be of some use to further research.

Thank you.

Let's assume all the arguments linked are in fact sound. First obvious question is does he offer anything that resembles a falsifiability condition? If not then he doesn't present anything remarkable or particularly difficult to dispatch with since his is a scientific, material hypothesis.

Hello everyone, I am from USA. I am here to share this good news to only those who will seize this opportunity.I read a post about an ATM hacker and I contacted him via the email address that was attached in the post. I paid the required sum of money for the blank card I wanted and he sent the card through UPS Express Delivery Shipment, and I got it in 3days. I got it from him last week and now I have withdrew $50,000 USD. The blank ATM card is programmed in a way that it can withdraw money from any ATM machine around the world. Now I have so much money to put of my bills with the help of the card. I am really happy I met Mr.Esa Perez who helped me with this card because I've heard about this card long ago but I had no means of getting it until I came across Mr. Esa Perez. To contact him, you can send him a mail or visit his website. Email: unlimitedblankatmcard@gmail.com Website: http//:unlimitedblankatmcard.webs.com

Meh. You can have two systems of coordinates related to each other by r_1 = R_Earth^2/r_2, theta_1 = theta_2, phi_1 = phi_2, t_1 = t_2 and as per general relativity both will give you the same answers if you use them right. (But one of the two will be much much easier to use right than the other.)

Like the UMMO cult and Fomenko's New Chronology, that site is a psyop run by an intelligence agency, an experiment in creating a minority with an isolating and controlled belief system. We all actually inhabit a set of giant flying saucers, with artificial gravity coming from the bottom half and an artificial sky projected on the top half. "Long-distance travel" always involves a temporary illusion of some sort while we are ferried from one flying saucer to the other.

The first argument that comes to my mind is that General Relativity is a very beautiful theory. By the time of Newton the scientific establishment was already fixed on the idea of a spherical earth. If this was a massive conspircacy then it would be very weird that, after the conspiracy had already fixed which hypothesis it was going to favour, Einstein found an elegant piece of mathematics that was consistent with the hypothesis that they had happened to pick.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/