Why are things different “down south”? Why does an apparent contradiction exist between flights along southern lines of latitude vs those along northern lines of latitude? A flight pattern such as this,
should take longer on the Flat Earth, geometrically speaking, than one taken along opposite northern lines of latitude. Because, as spherists argue, lines of latitude increase the farther you move away from the center of the disk in any direction. For example:
Spherists believe that lines of latitude and longitude look like this on a ball earth:
In this compelling piece, the author compares the increase in Flat Earth distances along southern lines of latitude, with known flight times recorded in these regions. A flight that travels east to west along southern portions of the disk, should take longer given the greater distance, than flights along corresponding latitudes in the north. As this article attempts to demonstrate,
distance geometrically increases the farther south you go on the Flat Earth. Yet known flight times recorded by numerous travelers confirm that traveling a set distance (say 200 miles) from point A to point B in the south, takes the exact same amount of time as 200 miles traveled in the north. On a Flat Earth, this phenomenon should not be possible. At face value, it seems that this could only occur on a spherical earth, as the distance along northern and southern lines of latitude mirror each other on a sphere:
These observations seem like strong rebuttals to Flat Earth Theory. And while the Flat Earth synthesis stands as strong as ever, it is important to address mainstream concerns with intuitively based knowledge. Unlike scientific dogma, Flat Earth Theory ONLY makes inferences regarding the existence of unobserved phenomena when such inferences are backed by the totality of observational evidence. A quick look at our Q&A, Evidence, and Resources pages should provide more than a basic exposure to the sheer amount of evidence supporting Flat Earth Theory.
One of the primary theoretical forces underlying Flat Earth Theory, Universal Acceleration can account for many seemingly inexplicable natural phenomena. A current of magnetic force that moves through the universe, the UA acts upon large objects (such as earth) that have sufficient surface area, propelling them upwards through the void of space. Combined with the Obligate Tendency, the earth finds itself structurally locked between two opposing forces: one exerting an upwards push, the other a simultaneous downwards pull.
Due to Universal Acceleration, it is entirely possible that both the speed and volume of material objects is non uniform across the disk.
I propose that the Earth resonates with the Universal Accelerator as it is carried upwards through space, thus affecting the speed and material volume of any given object relative to its geographic location. I propose the causal mechanism of these phenomena is due to
Picture in your mind the cylindrical disk of the earth locked within the inexorable force of cosmic magnetism, moving constantly upwards. Earth itself is composed of numerous heavy metals and countless other conductive elements. Moving through the magnetic field of the UA would not only generate Earth’s magnetic field, it would generate Transversal Energy pathways through the planet itself. “Transversal” refers to the nexus points at which different magnetic pathways meet, generating unseen energy fields across the surface of the disk.
This energy impacts matter on a fundamental level.
- Objects located on northern portions of the disk, have a total spatial volume that is proportionately less than the total volume of objects in the south.
- Both volume and speed increase the farther south an object is.
- Transversal Resonance acts gradually along a spectrum, starting from the center of the disk (the north pole) and radiating outward like spokes on a wheel.
At the fundamental molecular level, matter itself expands as you move south across the disk, and contracts when you move north again. Speed also increases and decreases relative to our north/south location, as well as the size and composition of light waves. Measuring the force of Transversal Resonance (TR) is impossible, as any instruments we use to perform measurements (along with our sensory organs themselves) are all simultaneously acted upon by TR across the disk. You could measure your speed with a speedometer when moving from north to south, but the speedometer itself changes in volume as you move. Thus, it would never be able to track the fundamental shift…
Keeping the idea of a gradual gradient in mind, Transversal Resonance can be represented like this:
The gradual zones impact physical phenomena in demonstrably observable ways. For example, why are southern summers far colder than northern summers, despite the fact that spherists believe that the ball earth is closer to the sun during southern summers? This picture illustrates what round earth believers think regarding earth’s seasonal relation to the sun:
As the picture shows, during southern summers the earth is closer to the sun by about 3 million miles! And yet unlike the south, the north actually has a summer:
The arctic (north) experiences comparatively warm summers. While the Antarctic (south), despite being CLOSER to the sun during summertime stays frozen. The globe model is obviously flawed.
However, if the proposed Flat Earth phenomenon of Transversal Resonance is accurate, the increase in volume of snow and ice in the far south along with the increase in wind speeds, would easily explain its comparatively cold climate. Consistent with what we observe regarding southern winters, TR’s gradual increase of southern volume/speed can be thought of like this:
With each color coded symbol representing a point on the Flat Earth, moving outwards from the center corresponds to a specific increase in both volume and speed at each successive location:
And rather than contradicting what we see regarding southern winters, it actually supports the idea of a continually frozen south. Greater volume of snow and ice, and faster winds cause colder temperatures. Its that simple! Round earth belief has no way of explaining the obvious inconsistencies of its own confused theories. It cannot explain southern summers, nor can it propose a single idea without contradicting itself somewhere else.
If TR Existed, It Should Have Been Measured Right?
This is a question skeptics will likely ask. And for good reason. Intuitively, one would think that the speed of a race car in the north could be simultaneously measured and compared with the speed of a race car driving at the same time 2000 miles south. But remember, moving south increases both the volume and speed of objects relative to their distance from the center of the disk. This means that the instruments themselves which you use to measure these changes will increase as they move with you. The volume of your body’s sensory organs would change too. You will never be able to quantify the change as your means of measuring it simultaneously change alongside the thing you attempt to measure. And TR happens along a gradual gradient that affects light as well, meaning you could never observe the phenomenon through a telescope. For example:
Relative to you the observer, both the size and composition of light waves is fluid. It changes. The size of light itself depends upon your location on the disk. As the illustration above (and below) shows, where you stand determines the size and composition of light your eyes receive. Moving outwards from the north, light increases in size. Moving from the south back to the north decreases it in size. And from where you stand, the light entering your eyes when looking southwards is proportionately smaller than the distant southerly object you look towards. (Remember, the only reason we see objects in the first place is due to light reflecting from an object and entering our eyes). Relative to the observer, this makes smaller objects in the north look comparatively larger, and larger objects in the south comparatively smaller. Thus, from the position of the observer, the light (mediated by TR) makes differently sized objects appear equal. You can picture it roughly like this:
This is why no obvious size difference is apparent, even though size (due to increase in volume) varies widely from north to south. The light our eyes receive distorts the actual size of objects. Remember TR changes both you and everything around you as you move across the disk. Going south, things get bigger, but so does your body. The energy pathways that form the basis of Transversal Resonance change the spatial structure of matter itself, while also changing the immaterial structure of light, explaining why we can’t perceive changes in size.
We cannot directly observe the phenomenon of TR as it does not represent incontrovertible knowledge, such as our ability to plainly see the Flat horizon. But it does follow from what we know, and unlike gravity it is consistent with other observed phenomena.
The Transversal mechanics of light are consistent with what we observe regarding differences in the appearance of the moon. As the above picture shows, when compared with pictures taken in the north with pictures taken in the south, the moon appears inverted:
What could cause this phenomenon? The relative perspective of observers standing at opposite ends of a sphere earth as shown here?
Or the internally consistent notion of TR? Obviously, Transversal Resonance is the more compelling explanation. The north/south distortion of light could easily invert the appearance of the moon relative to northern/southern observers. Like southern summers, the phenomenon of the inverted moon makes more sense from the perspective of Flat Earth Theory and Transversal Resonance.
Transversal Resonance Explains The Absence of Discrepancies In Southern Flight Times
As the above animation shows, Transversal Resonance effectively closes the gap in what would otherwise be a massive discrepancy between southern and northern flight times. As a general rule of thumb we can say, the time it takes to travel 500 miles in the north equals the time it takes to travel 4000 miles in the south (when moving in a more or less east or west direction). However, these differences in volume/speed are not apparent as the effects of TR make them seem equal (relatively speaking) to an observer.
These forces mean that even the fuel inside an aircraft increases along with the aircraft itself. This is why we can’t measure TR through the amount of fuel a plane uses. The larger volume of the airplane causes it to use more fuel, cancelling out the amount of fuel gained. Remember, EVERYTHING INCREASES IN VOLUME AND SPEED WHEN MOVING SOUTH ALONG THE DISK. The force of TR exists, we just don’t see it.
While compelling, Transversal Resonance does not represent an instance of certain knowledge. TR explains a lot, and is consistent with observed phenomena such as cold Antarctic summers and inverted photos of the moon. But it is still (and always will be) a proposition, a good guess which aims to connect the dots between other things we know for certain. In this way, TR represents a synthesis of knowledge. By unifying observations of nature that seem unrelated, the proposition not only explains why things happen, it reconciles phenomena that seem contradictory. In this way, it is firmly rooted in the demonstrably observable realities of Flat Earth Theory…
Math “Proves” Nothing, Except That Math Itself Is “True”
And unfortunately, our society believes that enough math can turn the world into a ball. It cant.
Math does nothing more than describe reality, the reality we see first with our senses. Mainstream science exalts math to an almost god like status, going so far to say things like: “reality IS math”. And from this supposedly infallible truth we are supposed to believe in things like a ball earth or big bang. I’m not saying the universe was divinely created, but the idea that it came into existence from an explosion is simply absurd. I would like to see the hard core followers of scientism (like Tyson or Nye) put a brick of c4 in their house and see how much order and physical complexity that “big bang” produces. But I digress…
Back to math.
Math can no more describe what reality is, than a painting can describe something real. Like a painting, math is in the eye of the beholder. I could craft eloquent equations that track the coming and going of the Easter Bunny, but they wouldn’t make the furry fellow any more “real”. Our senses are the primary means of understanding what is around us. I can “prove” the Easter Bunny with math, and never see it once. Every physicist looks at material reality with their senses, and describes what they see in terms of math. They take their sensation of reality (the closest thing to indisputable knowledge possible) and strain it through the filter of the mathematical process. I’ve seen some fine paintings of mountain ranges, but I can guarantee you that none of those paintings do the reality of actually experiencing mountains any justice. Like math, a painting can be beautiful, not because of its ability to faithfully recreate reality, but because it bears the uniqueness (and biases) of the individual artist.
Math, like painting, is a secondary construct of the mathematician’s primary perception of reality. And yet, as soon as intellectuals outside the accepted domain of academic thought propose common sense explanations of nature, they get laughed down “because math proves them wrong“.
Or so they say.
The idea of a Flat Earth makes more intuitive sense than the complicated and confused notion that individual bodies can somehow stay glued to a ball spinning at 1000mph, while hurtling through space at 67,00mph. The horizon, however you look at with your own senses, is always Flat. But as soon as the lights dimly start to flicker in the minds of average people, math swoops in in the form of awe inspiring (Morgan Freeman narrated) tv specials showing pictures of the photoshoped cosmos, declaring confidently that “math proves these ideas as indisputable“.
The only thing “indisputable” about math is scientific dogma’s misconstruction of what math really is. Math describes, it never proves. A mathematical “proof” such as 2+2=4 only proves that the system of math is true. It is not a “proof” in the actual sense of the word. If I argue and say,
Math is not true
You will counter and say,
Yes it is, because 2+2=4 is true
But do you see the problem? Saying math is true because math is true falls into the trap of circular reasoning. And before you try and tell me that this argument is a straw man, please offer a reasonable explanation as to why math describes what reality is, without saying “because it works”. “Because it works” is no explanation, simply a statement of the obvious. Math works, but there is no reason to assume it does a better job of “proving” reality for that reason alone. Math stems from what we see. If the earth is Flat, then math “works” on the Flat Earth even if those using math believe the earth is round. Paintings “work”. My computer “works”. My senses also “work”. Arguably the best of all…
How does the spherical earth survive its 67,000mph headlong dash through space?
Or more precisely, it wouldn’t.
The earth is Flat, cylindrical in overall structure, and moves upwards through space at a modest speed due to Universal Acceleration. A newcomer to the theoretical landscape of cosmic reality, modern Flat Earth Theory (FET) is quickly moving to replace the outdated methodologies of mainstream science. Science is inherently circular. FET is not. In taking a new theoretical approach to an understanding of material reality, FET seeks to expose the problems inherent to round earth belief.
One of the most glaring conceptual flaws that undermine heliocentric notions of planetary motion, perihelion and aphelion represents a systematic blow to the idea that the earth moves around the sun.
Spherists believe that the ball earth moves around the sun in an ellipse, along an orbital path something like this:
However, by spherist standards, this type of orbit would make life on earth impossible. Consider for a moment the spherist (round earther) response to basic common sense arguments like “if the earth is round and spinning at 1000mph, we would be flung off.” The round earther invariably replies: “relative motion. Relative motion and the laws of inertia and gravity make it such that any object resting on the Earth’s surface, is moving at the same speed as the earth itself. It’s the same reason you don’t fly back when you jump on a moving bus…”
Ignoring the conceptual issues with this argument, lets say for a moment that the round earthers are right. And that relative motion as they imagine it really does affect bodies in nature. If so, by the very rules of the spherists themselves, the existence of perihelion along an elliptical orbit would make life impossible. In its yearly course around the sun, the sharp turn as the ball earth approaches perihelion at 67,000mph should eject all life from Earth’s surface. Imagine a roller coaster with sharp loops, twists, and turns. Now imagine if the ride’s operator said, “you don’t need restraints: relative motion, inertia, and gravity will hold you down.” Without a doubt, everyone would avoid that ride.
So why don’t the same rules apply to the ball earth? Examine this illustration depicting perihelion and aphelion:
The orbital path demonstrably shows a sharp turn at either end of the ellipse. If a massive, spheroid earth really made such a sharp turn while moving at 67,000mph the physical effects on the planet would be devastating. Besides being flung of like an unbelted roller coaster patron, the very structure of Earth itself would strain under the angular momentum. Tectonic plates would quake, sky scrapers would fall. Oceans would bulge to one side and then subside, causing massive devastation as Tsunamis and floods. Yet according to the spherists, Earth encounters a turn such as this TWICE every year. And magically, we feel nothing. Not even rocks like these fall over:
The spherist natural framework stretches credulity. A multitude of contradictory assumptions such as these riddles the claims of scientific methodology. In its overzealous desire to explain the universe in its own image, science misses its own simple and obvious mistakes. It fails to recognize its own inconsistencies. The strength of Planar Theory (Flat Earth Theory) consists in the fluid nature of its theoretical framework. It is not a method. Planar Theory takes the empirical data of the senses at face value, using only the most concrete observational data as the basis for broader, more tentative inferences. This framework is pre eminently rational and empirical. It is a common sense merger of the mind and the senses. It forces clear minded thought, not belief…
For millennia, comets have inspired awe and terror in numerous cultures across time and place. But what do these rare and stunning cosmic objects tell us about the Flat Earth?
As it turns out, quite a lot.
Flat Eart Theory (FET) holds that the sun, moon, planets, and stars are closer to the Flat Earth, where they orbit above its surface. Images clearly showing clouds behind the sun provide compelling visual evidence supporting the idea that the majority of cosmic objects exist with in a localized “geo system” above the Earth. Comets fit perfectly within an FET framework, which sees them as small roaming objects with wide ranging orbital paths that occasionally bring them within the visual range of earth bound observers. Before you mock this idea, I suggest you take a hard look at the contradictory assumptions spherists make regarding comets.
- Spherists believe that comets shed particles due to the heat of sun, causing their bright and characteristic “tails.”
However, spherists also assume that,
2. Comets are large and appear at regular intervals. Take Halley’s Comet for instance. Spherists note regarding its structure:
Despite the vast size of its coma, Halley’s nucleus is relatively small: barely 15 kilometers long, 8 kilometers wide and perhaps 8 kilometers thick.[b] Its shape vaguely resembles that of a peanut. Its mass is relatively low (roughly 2.2 × 1014 kg) and its average density is about 0.6 g/cm3, indicating that it is made of a large number of small pieces, held together very loosely, forming a structure known as a rubble pile.
And yet they simultaneously believe that Halley’s Comet has passed by earth for thousands of years:
Halley’s returns to the inner Solar System have been observed and recorded by astronomers since at least 240 BC. Clear records of the comet’s appearances were made by Chinese, Babylonian, and medieval European chroniclers, but were not recognized as reappearances of the same object at the time. The comet’s periodicity was first determined in 1705 by English astronomer Edmond Halley, after whom it is now named.
The contradiction is apparent. Spherists believe that the comet’s nucleus is “relatively small” and that the composition of the comet itself is a loose “rubble pile.” How does a comet which is small (roughly 10x5x5 miles) and loosely held together move through space shedding its particles for thousands of years? Just when does the peanut shaped ball of gravel lose all its particles and become nothing more than a scatter, a mere smear across the void of space? This should have happened a long time ago.
Another set of contradictory spherist assumptions involve the sun.
- Mainstream science holds that the sun is a massive ball of fire occupying the center of the solar system, and that it moves through space at 483,000mph!
They also believe that,
2. Comets shed particles as they move through space near the sun. For example, they claim Halley’s moves at 157,838mph.
How does a comet moving at 150,000mph+ shed particles causing a visually evident “tail”, but the sun, moving at the break neck speed of 483,000mph does not?!?
Simply put: the sun should have a “tail” as well.
How much does mainstream science need to contradict itself until people start realizing its glaring inconsistencies?
The FET model of a small scale, localized geo system better supports the existence of comets. Rather than being a loose “rubble pile”, it is far more likely that Halley’s Comet (and others) is a particularly hot and quickly moving star that heats up cosmic particles in its wake.(Remember, FET sees stars as small nearby orbs that emit their own light). Again, Flat Earth Theory better explains phenomena that science cannot account for…
Question: “So how does an “orbit” even work in the Flat Earth Model?”
The Earth is Flat. The sun, moon, planets, and stars are all smaller and orbit above its surface. They are spherical. Perspective (relative to you the viewer on Earth) determines how celestial bodies appear.
For ages, mainstream science has assumed that vast distances interpose between Earth and objects in space. Under the heliocentric model, spherists envision the sun as a massive ball of fire, with the several planets radiating outward and orbiting around it. They even claim planetary orbits are caused by the gravitational “pull” of the sun itself, which results from the sun’s mass.
However, gravity does not exist. No rational or observational data exists that can explain the most basic assumptions of Gravitational Theory. To this day, physicists do not understand why mass would induce gravitational forces in the first place. Essentially, the world’s greatest minds can’t come up with anything better than “big object make big pull“.
“Why?” you the thoughtful observer might ask.
Their silence is the most compelling answer you will ever get. The utter paucity of well thought explanation represents one of the hallmarks of mainstream science. Science fills its gaping theoretical holes with open speculation and presumption. So when you hear Flat Earth Theorists saying things like “the sun, moon, and planets are smaller and closer to the surface of the Earth” remember that we are going where our senses lead us, rather than stubbornly patching the holes of a failing methodological system. Flat Earth conceptions of what constitutes “gravity”, such as the Obligate Tendency, offer both fresh and compelling analyses of the question.
So, how does an “orbit” even work in the first place?
Simply put, an orbit is a sustained, consistent and repeated motion of an unsupported object through space. The primary motive force in the universe is the Universal Accelerator. The UA acts on any given object in relation to its surface area. For very large objects (like the earth or the sun) an extensive surface area allows the UA (which is primarily magnetic) to move objects upwards at a constant rate. (Note that despite the term “acceleration”, the upwards motion of the earth is constant). For smaller objects (like airplanes), a given amount of propulsion proportional to surface area is necessary for the object to be acted upon. Orbits are caused by the UA. The surface area of the sun, moon, planets, and stars (even though they are smaller than Earth), is enough to be acted upon by the UA. The elliptical path of planetary orbits likely stems from interference of the earth itself with the magnetic current of the UA.
In relation to the Flat Earth, a simple (static) depiction of the sun, moon, planets, and stars would look something like a giant crib mobile, suspended above the Flat Earth disk. Of course, an infantile mental image such as this forgets the sheer complexity of the spatial and orbital structure of the celestial bodies. One must consider distance, multiplied into the thousands (of miles), interposing between bodies; orbit, the motion whereby every planet and star intertwines itself into the greater tapestry of the cosmic dance; and light, the beguiling radiance which variably illumines one planet while leaving another in obscurity. Then the stars. Shimmering motes of light staring inscrutably down, comfortably indifferent to humanity’s pretensions.
All while smaller, are no less grand. Closer, each is invitingly near rather than imperiously distant. “Touching the stars” only becomes impossible in a spherist universe. With the right technology, man could conceivably reach the stars; and touch the orbs themselves, likely no more than a few hundred feet in diameter.
The Obvious Does Not Lie…
Everyday, when someone observes nature with an open and inquisitive mind, perception is unanimous: The Earth Is Flat. One of the most apparent and enduring realities of nature, the sun demonstrates each evening what society chooses not to see. Whether crepuscular rays,
Or the fact that both Sun AND Moon are the same size in the afternoon sky,
Society stubbornly refuses to acknowledge Flat Earth Theory. This image demonstrates that the sun is smaller and much closer to he earth, where it orbits above its surface.
The picture also speaks volumes regarding the structure of earth’s atmosphere. Obviously, the atmosphere is layered, with clouds occurring both in front and behind the sun. Logically, the posterior (rear most) clouds are much larger and thicker than those occurring in front of the sun. We encounter nearby clouds while flying or climbing a tall mountain. The Sun orbits well beyond the nearest clouds, while the distant clouds are themselves well beyond the sun. Simply put, the structure of the atmosphere (from the ground up), follows the order of cloud, sun, cloud. Then, space…
So why don’t we often see clouds behind the sun during the afternoon? Upper atmosphere clouds (the thicker more distant ones) tend to occur along the more distant fringes of the disk of the earth. As the sun recedes in its daily orbit across the surface of the earth (causing the sun to set), the angle of light (relative to the observer) reflects from the earth, illuminating the distant “thick” clouds.
Of course, this oversimplification only serves to communicate the highly complex nature of the atmosphere. Until truly objective research motivated by Planar Theory becomes financially and socially possible, we are forced to work with the crude and biased findings of mainstream science. Even spherist research suggests a layered atmosphere. Yet such mainstream models fail woefully at explaining the existence of clouds that are visibly in front and behind the sun itself. For instance, consider this rebuttal to the images that show a nearby sun in front of distant clouds:
At face value this seems like a sound dismissal of the Nearby Sun Hypothesis. However, it makes a fundamental observational error: the power lines pictured are in fact closer to the camera lens. Why would these “bleed out”, when clouds obviously more distant than the power lines appear plainly and solidly in front of the sun? Why would nearby power lines be obliterated but not distant clouds? Clearly something is going on here. If you look at the picture, it’s easy to see a light whiff of cloud in front of the sun in the lower left hand quadrant; while a much thicker and darker portion of cloud situated in the lower right hand quadrant floats demonstrably behind the sun. We see clouds in front, and clouds behind. This rebuttal requires nothing more than open minded observation to refute.
Unfortunately, society (and science) is not open minded.
“If the earth is flat, trans Pacific flights from California to Australia should be impossible/much longer.”
The above question presupposes its own answer: round earth. It does not even consider the possibility that the earth IS Flat, and that flight times reflect that reality. Flight times take precisely the amount of time they do, because the earth is Flat. If we existed on a spherical earth, traveling from California to Australia would take way less time:
If the earth were round, distances between any two points would become significantly smaller. However, given the fact that it is Flat, flight times take much longer:
As can be seen, the distances between points on a Flat Earth are greater. These distances reflect the 15hr 30 minute flight time between California and Australia. If the earth were condensed into a spherical shape, not only would the earth’s surface area be smaller, all flights would take way less time.
Long flight times reflect a Planar Earth.
Question: “So earth is just some sort of giant Frisbee?”
Kind of. Before you laugh, realize that earth being the shape of a Frisbee is no more humorous than the idea that it is a giant beach ball.
That being said, most of you probably think of the Flat Earth as iconic images like this one:
This is a generalized representation of what the earth would look like if viewed from above (way above). But remember, the Flat Earth is a three dimensional object. The only thing “Flat” about it is the upward facing surface we all live on. And even that is uneven with changing elevation and topography. As a whole, the earth is a three dimensional cylinder. Roughly speaking, it looks like this:
It is comprised of a Proximal (upper) crust, Central (middle) molten layer, and Distal (bottom) crust. The entire structure is held together by an encasing of ice thousands of miles thick.
If it weren’t for the sun, Earth would be completely encapsulated in ice.
The warmth generated by the sun holds back the ice across the habitable surface and generates a dome like atmosphere from the resulting meteorological forces. In Planar Models of the Earth it is important to remember that the sun is smaller and much closer to Earth, and orbits above its surface. The sun’s orbit (as well as the structure of Earth itself) is caused by Universal Acceleration, as well as the Obligate Tendency Towards Downward Motion. The Obligate Tendency is a universal maxim which holds that all unsupported material objects will fall downwards through the void of space, unless acted upon by a force. Universal Acceleration drives the constant upwards motion of the earth. This force is resisted by the Obligate Tendency, making Earth the focal point of constant strain between the two forces. The resulting pressure produces the structure illustrated below:
The sheer strain of these forces pressurizes the molten layer, while the massive amounts of ice in the Outer Encasing holds the molten layer in. Yes, the lava melts through some of the ice, but eventually it causes the molten layer to cool and harden along the outer portions that contact the ice. Complex interaction of these and other forces support the larger geo-structure we call home. While Earth is not a ball, it is definitely not simple either. And understanding its actual form should spur the curiosity of anyone willing to look beyond the curved and twisted horizon of round earth dogma.