The Pale Blue Dot? Chapter Three: The Firmament/Dome

Written By Thomas Perez. October 4, 2018 at 12:54AM. Copyright 2018. Updated 2020.

Genesis 1:6-7, 14-18.

Vs. 6. And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Vs. 7. and God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament: and it was so. Vs. 14. And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. Vs. 15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth: and it was so. Vs. 16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the Stars also. Vs. 17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth. Vs. 18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

History of the Firmament/Dome

On October 24, 1946, the V2 Rocket #13 became the first man-made object to take a photograph of the Earth from space.

Twenty six years later, on December 7th, the Apollo 17 mission took the following picture. This picture became known by the title that was given to it: “The Blue Marble.” More on the “images” and “pictures” of the alleged “blue marble” in chapter nineteen.

However, in the past the ancients, although knowing it was a circle, and not a globe, depicted the Earth differently. They often pictured it flat, with a firmament (like a tent) covering the Earth. So, what gives here? For the purpose of this chapter, I shall refer to the firmament as a “dome.” I am doing this because the Hebrew word for firmament comes from the word “Raqiya” – which means “an expanse” “an visible arch of the sky.” The root word is “Raqa” – “to overlay,” “ to expand.”

Many well intended Christian apologists claim that the Bible never mentions a flat Earth. This is an error. There are at least 200 verses, some say more, that proclaim a flat geocentric Earth, even the last book of the Bible mentions it. In Revelation 20:9 and 21:16, the Apostle John mentions “The breadth of the Earth.” Inquisitive minds want to know, why the word, “breadth?” Strong’s English – Hebrew – Greek concordance cites that the word “breadth” actually means “flat.” According to Strong’s Concordance, the number 4114 comes from 4116. 4116 comes from 4111 – “Flat.” And 4111 means to “shape” and “mold.” However, ball Christian Earthers use Isaiah 40:42 – where it says “The circle of the Earth” as a rebuttal against flat Earthers. This is an ignorant rebuttal. All well-informed flat Earthers believe that the Earth is a circle. But it is a flat circle. Quarters are circles, but they are flat. Space does not exist as they are telling us. The Earth is an enclosed system. The planets are not what they are telling us. They are simply wandering stars. The following two photos are in reference to the word “breadth” as found in the Strong’s Concordance. (1).


Moreover, many cultures outside of the Bible spoke of a firmament/dome since the beginning of time. Similarly, a recent discovery of an ancient stone depicting a flat Earth also solidifies the widespread belief of a disk-shaped Earth surrounded by a dome, as seen in the pictures below…

European Depiction…

The Mayan…

The Egyptians, the Nurse, Hindu, Inca, Navajo, and the Hebrew depiction…

And the Christian concept…

Many other cultures, although not included above, also viewed the Earth, with its dome, as pictured above. But exactly what is this dome made out of, and what is its function? There are some speculations. We know that it isn’t made from water itself, at least not according to various creation stories. Because its job is, or was, to separate the waters in the heavens from the waters below, with the Earth settled in between. We are told by the ancients, and their Scriptures of Holy Writ, that the Sun, Moon and stars are in it, or just below it. Though some depictions above show them (the Sun and the Moon), except for the stars, just below it. This discrepancy may be due to a culture’s linguistic textual documentation and/or tradition of their respective time. But what do we know of it today? Was it real? Does it still exist? Has it ever existed? Is the Earth a flat circular disk, more or less? Or is it simply a metaphor – an allegory to illustrate a story? Before we answer these questions, let us ask another question. A question based upon a scientific fact – “Are disk shaped planets even possible?” The answer to that question is “Yes.” The scientific community states that circular disks are formed during a planet’s initial beginnings, and if all the properties are in place, only then can it become a larger disk with depths that vary in size.

“For a long time, the formation of protostellar disks – a prerequisite to the formation of planetary system around stars – has defied theoretical astrophysicists: In a dense, collapsing cloud of gas and dust, the magnetic field would be dragged to the center as well, resulting in a braking effect. Hardly any rotationally supported disk can form this way, unless the tiny grains are removed from the cloud by growing or coagulating into bigger grains. This is the result from a new study published by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and other intuitions. The more realistic simulations now take into account non-ideal magneto-hydrodynamics and ionization chemistry to form a rotationally supported protostellar disk.” (2).


Moreover; “When grains are mostly larger than 0.1 micrometres, the rotationally supported disks can become massive enough to be self-gravitating and evolve into rings,” says Zhao. “Such a structure in 3D could easily fragment into multiple stellar systems, which may also help explain the high multiplicity of stars in our Milky Way.”

“It is surprising to find that the removal of small dust grains can avoid the ‘magnetic braking catastrophe’ in disk formation,” says Paola Caselli, co-author of the paper. “This is a breakthrough in our understanding of how protoplanetary disks form. At the same time, it demonstrates that chemistry and microphysics are crucial to the fundamental processes in the field of star and planet formation.” (3).

3. Ibid 2.

Here are two pictures depicting the formation of a disk planet from the same cited source…

4. Ibid 2.

Similarly, according to NASA, “Asteroids are minor planets, especially those of the inner Solar System. The larger ones have also been called planetoids. These terms have historically been applied to any astronomical object orbiting the Sun that did not show the disc of a planet (emphasis by T. Perez) and was not observed to have the characteristic of a active comet. As minor planets in the outer Solar System were discovered and found to have volatile-based surfaces that resemble those of comets, they were often distinguished from asteroids of the asteroid belt.” (5).

5. Wiki.

Moreover, according to an article by NASA entitled ‘Planets and Disks;’ “The heat-sensitive infrared eyes of NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope are perfect for studying distant planet forming disks, and characterizing exoplanets, or planets beyond our Solar System.

When a cosmic cloud condenses, the baby star that forms inside is rotating. The dusty material surrounding the newborn star is also moving and will eventually flatten into a disk around the new star’s equator. This dusty disk material is the stuff that comets, asteroids, and planets are made of.

Some (emphasis by T. Perez) astronomers think that planets form like snowballs over millions of years, as small dust grains clump together to form larger rocks. Some of these cosmic rocks then smash together to form rocky planets, like Earth, or the cores of gas-giant planets like Jupiter. Large rocks that don’t form planets often become asteroids and comets.” (6).


However, according to Sky & Telescope: Astronomy-News; “…Disks do not always mean planets.” (7). However, we are told that a protoplanetary disk is a rotating circumstellar disk of dense gas and dust surrounding a young newly formed star. If protoplanetary disks can be formed like “snowballs” over time, then the shape and size of such formations can vary. We see this in asteroids, meteors and comets. But can planetary bodies have different shapes? They certainly can. It is now commonly accepted that the shape of the Earth is not a perfect circular globe. 


“As countless photos from space can attest, Earth is round – the “Blue Marble,” as astronauts have affectionately dubbed it. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Planet Earth is not, in fact, perfectly round. This is not to say Earth is flat. Well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Aristotle and other ancient Greek scholars proposed that Earth was round. This was based on a number of observations, such as the fact that departing ships not only appeared smaller as they sailed away but also seemed to sink into the horizon, as one might expect if sailing across a ball” says geographer Bill Carstensen of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. (However, the explanation given by Carstensen has already been dealt with in chapter one – as sailing ships, when bought back into view, indicate a non-curvature – T. Perez). Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth’s center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles.” (8).


Here is a picture depicting an oblate Earth. The second picture depicts the shape of the Earth without its waters. (9). However, land mass sizes are left to interpretation, However, NASA cannot seem to make up their minds as to what color this “Pale Blue Dot” is. The third and fourth pictures show different sized land masses, and different colors from various nations. More on these images in chapter nineteen. 


Obviously, the picture that demonstrates an Earth without its waters defies the laws of gravity. Gravity holds the oceans in place – hence keeping it from flying into space; at least that is what they say. They also claim that; “Due to the gravity of the Earth, the Earth is rotating at a speed of 108,000 km/h; this is why it looks like a perfect circle.” (10). This is an acceptable explanation. But it makes very little difference to a round Earther or a flat circular Earther. Since our field of view is limited from our position on Earth, or from space (the firmament), the question or denial of gravity’s existence is hence justifiable. More on the theory of gravity in chapter ten.


But if there is no curve, where is the South Pole (Antarctic)? According to flat Earthers, the South Pole does not exist. Instead, the South Pole is a wall of ice that encircles the enclosed domed flat Earth or known Earth land/continents. According to some flat Earthers, the ice was, and can be seen – it is the barrier in which the dome extends over the circular, but flat Earth. According to such adherents, this wall was indeed discovered by various expeditions. Other flat Earthers view the Earth itself as infinite – meaning that beyond the ringed ice wall of the South, beyond our continents and iced wall barrier, may be other lands/continents. Many have tried and almost succeeded in crossing, to some degree anyway, this barrier while on various expeditions. 

There has been a total of 195 Antarctic expeditions throughout history. Sixteen in Pre 19th century history, twenty-two in the 19th cent, one hundred and twelve in the 20th cent and forty-five in the 21st Cent – with one by the name of Admiral Byrd conducting four in the 20th century. That’s an incredible one hundred and ninety-five expeditions. For a complete listing of such voyages and flights browse link below on your internet device/browser. (11).


One such expedition was described in the Encyclopedia Americana…The 2.14 second video excerpt taken from the encyclopedia below seems to indicate an enclosed dome…

Here is the exact quotation:

“In December 1955 the task force left New Zealand to set up two base stations in Ross Sea area, Little America V was established at Kainan Bay, about 30 miles east along the Ross Ice Shelf from the Bay of Whales, and an air operation base was constructed at Hut Point on Ross Island in McMurdo Sound. Four United States planes flew from New Zealand to McMurdo Sound on December 30, 1955 and made exploratory flights over unknown parts of the continent (Antarctica) until January 18, 1956, when they returned to New Zealand. These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80 degrees South, longitude 90 degrees East. New mountain ranges were located at about latitude 85 degrees South, longitude 50 degrees West, re-affirming the observation made by Ronne in 1947 that the Antarctic continent is a single unit.” The Encyclopedia Americana Vol 2, published 1958.

This is the longer version…

Simply put, 13,000 feet = 2.462 in miles. That is about 40+city blocks high. The term “80 latitude degrees” means an 80th parallel – north is a circle of latitude that is 80 degrees north of the Earth’s equatorial plane, in the Arctic. Any point on the Equator’s circle is of latitude 0°, the top north is 90° North, the top south is 90° South. Circles parallels to the Equator are of the same latitude. A Longitude is the West/East value of a point on Earth. Longitudes are lines going from the south pole to the north pole. Here is a picture demonstrating latitudes and longitudes.

Many flat Earthers argue this entry as being one of many proofs of a glass type dome. Others dismiss that claim, citing that the entry is merely speaking of mountain ranges and peaks, and not of some imaginary dome because an “imaginary dome” would be much higher than 13,000 feet (2.462 miles). This is a good counter. But with a little imagination one can easily dismiss this counter claim by noticing the date of the entry. Just two years after Admiral Richard Byrd’s expedition to the Antarctic. Here is a brief interview of Byrd’s expedition.

In the video, Admiral Byrd discusses the importance of Antarctica. He tells us that it is rich in minerals, oil, and natural resources. So much so that it can service the entire Earth and all of humanity for several years and lifetimes over. According to Byrd, it is the most important place in the world for science. Since the Antarctic is so rich in natural resources, then why keep it as off limits to digging, even at the request of investors? An insane number of benefits for humanity can be accessed from the Antarctic. But instead, all efforts are continually blocked off by what is called the ‘Antarctic Treaty.’

Byrd uses the words; “Continent,” “North Pole,” “South Pole” and the phrase “bottom of the Earth.” Hardly anything that flat Earthers can sink their teeth into. Instead, it seems to defy their view of the Earth. But he also said, toward the end of the video, that “The Antarctic continent is surrounded by a belt of ice, and frozen seas, at least 12,000 miles thick. The south is a plateau that gets to some places at about 14,000 feet up. I’ve also been over areas that were about 13,000 feet.”

Question: Is he talking about the seas being 12,000 miles thick, from top to bottom, as in a vertical line. Or is he talking about 12,000 miles thick, as in a horizontal line. If vertical, then he is referring to the ocean surface and down. Something of which I highly doubt due to obvious reasons. If horizontal, then that would entail an end of all that ice, somewhere after 12,000 miles. And then what? But in his next sentence he makes it clear that the height of the Antarctic is 13,000 to 14,000 feet high.

Now back to the Encyclopedia Americana quote, “with a dome 13,000 feet high.” Shouldn’t the quote be, “with domes (plural) 13,000 to 14,000 feet high, indicating many mountains of ice walls? But we do not read this. Instead, what we do read is “with a dome.”

Other expeditions were undertaken by Byrd also; like his expeditions to the artic circles – or as it is commonly called the “North Pole.” Here, at least according to the story, a hollow Earth is seen. A sort of encased reversed dome enclosure. A flat Earth – spread across its dome from the inside, like the inside walls of an egg. A universe inside an inverted dome.

According to Raymond W. Bernard, Bernard quotes an excerpt from a 1947 journal entry by Admiral Byrd; “We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over Ice and Snow! To the port-side are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation Instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating back and forth!” (12).

12. The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History Made by Admiral Richard E. Byrd in the Mysterious Land Beyond the Poles, was published in 1964 by Raymond W. Bernard (a pseudonym for a man named Walter Siegmeister).

Many other strange things are said with reference to Admiral Byrd. “The fringe beliefs associated with Admiral Byrd’s exploits spin off in a variety of strange directions, all of which seem to belong more in the realm of science fiction than historic fact. For example, some accounts have claimed the famous explorer, while visiting the polar regions, actually discovered entrances to a vast Hollow Earth, in which lost civilizations with advanced UFO flying craft existed.” (13).


The following is a Google webpage that will show up on its search engines when one Googles the title, ‘The Missing Secret Diary of Admiral Byrd.’

A coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. True flat Earthers tend to ignore this. Instead, they focus on science that is conceivable in the natural world. However, many, if not all, Heliocentric adherents normally group all flat Earthers into one basket, claiming that they believe in all sorts of nonsense, as indicated above. This is simply not the case. Just like there are divisions within the scientific community about the origins of the universe and its future, there are also divisions within the camps of many flat Earthers. Furthermore, not all flat Earthers believe in a dome. But the one thing that they do have in common is that they believe that the Earth is a flat disk. When, or how it was created, remains debatable within their camps.

The question of space itself is also denied within their camps. Flat Earthers have various theories concerning this denial. They claim that the universe is small, and that this universe is not what we have been thought to believe. According to flat Earthers, the discrepancy of stellar parallax explains this as discussed in chapter two. The universe is encased within the dome. However, this theory does not explain “expansion,” as in the observational evidence that the universe is expanding – that the stars all seem to be flying away from one another by the means of expansion and acceleration.

However, one possible and plausible way to explain this anomaly is to conclude that the Earth, along with its dome, may be the thing that is expanding. A radical thought to say the least. If one were to Google “Is the Earth expanding,” they would find many reputable sites verifying such a “radical” thought; sites like the following: with its physics in math to prove it. (14).


Other sites offer the same theory – Harvard University, Popular Mechanics, Earth Science and so forth. Moreover, many physicists today claim that the universe is not expanding, as indicated in this article and others like it. (15).


Oxford University also makes the same claim, as the following 46 minute video from them illustrates…

If you are a Biblical fundamentalist, but yet ascribe to the indoctrinations of the globe heliocentric model, of which Biblical consensus contradict, in support of a flat geocentric stationary Earth, then you must deny the following verses as seen in the two pictures below.

Which brings us to our next question, “What about what we can see? What about the evidence that we have about space – via the Apollo missions, numerous satellites, the Hubble telescope, the ISS (the International Space Station), and its video feeds?” “Certainly, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a spinning ball, hence no expanding Earth and no expanding dome.” These particular topics will be discussed in chapters four, five, six, eight, seventeen and twenty-one.