# Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Analyzed — Video

A couple of years ago one of the pioneers of the modern-day Flat Earth Movement, Eric Dubay published a booklet “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball.” Since then flat earthers clam they have more than 200 proofs that the earth is flat.

In this video we will take an impartial look at these 200 flat earth proofs and try to distill the essence of them and work out what, if anything is actually proven or disproven.

In reality many of these 200 proofs are different examples of the same thing, when the duplicated “proofs” are grouped together there it becomes 34 proofs that the earth is flat.

One of the most common proofs given by flat earthers is: “The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude.” But this is exactly what we would expect to see on either a globe or a flat earth. Firstly we have to consider the earth is very large and we can only see a short distance, typically 10-20 miles but sometimes more. So within the small distance we can see the curve of a globe earth would be so slight that it would appear effectively flat. As far as altitude is concerned we can not go very high, looking out an airplane window ten miles above a globe almost eight thousand miles across does not change your view of the horizon significantly at all. Still, even if you were standing on a relatively small globe you may see the horizon drop but it would be flat all the way around 360 degrees. This is because if you are standing on a point on a globe the horizon all around you will be at the same distance and every point on the horizon will have dropped by the same amount. So there is no curve to see, even if you are standing on a small globe. So this is absolutely false to say because the horizon is flat the earth is flat. It is not at all proof that the earth is flat, you would not see a curved horizon even if the earth was a globe much smaller than what we presume it is.

The other most common proof presented by flat earthers is the visibly of distant objects that should be hidden behind the curve of the globe earth. They say, “We can see too far, therefore the earth is flat.” In the 200 proofs the earth is flat more than 40 of the proofs are different examples of being able to see distant objects which, on a globe, would be hidden from view. There is certainly some substance here. Flat earthers have given so many examples of being able to see distant objects which should be hidden behind the curve on a globe with a diameter of 7926 miles. This is an apparent contradiction to the globe model, but not proof that the earth is flat. As we have mentioned in a previous video our view of the stars in the sky is adjusted as we move around the earth in a way which is consistent with us moving around a globe. For example the polestar is directly overhead at the North Pole but at the horizon at the equator and then below the equator it will be hidden behind the curve of the earth. So distant objects are being hidden by what would be reasonable to consider is the curve of the earth. However it does appear that, in some cases at least, distant objects are not hidden quickly enough, according to our current understand of the globe earth. There are also many optical effects that come into play when looking at objects in the distance which do not seem to be currently fully understood, so it may be that some optical effect is causing objects to become visible when they are in reality actually hidden behind the curve of the globe. In any case this is certainly an area for serious research and does point to an apparent contradiction in the globe earth model, but does not prove the earth is flat.

There are ten proofs similar to: “Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects.” The idea of this flat earth proof is that if the earth was a globe and an engineer was designing a 100 mile stretch of a railway line, for example, he would have to take into account the curvature of the earth. Because the curve of the earth will add about eight feet each mile, so over a hundred miles he will need an extra 800 feet of railway track and will have to take this curve into consideration in his calculations. But seeing engineers never take this into account, that proves the earth is flat. However this is a false argument. If an engineer wants to build a railway track he will measure the actual distance over the land. You can drive your car, for example, over that 100 mile stretch, and check the milage you have covered and that will measure the actual distance around the curve, if it is curved, or along the flat plane, if it is flat. So this is not a proof of the earth being flat, engineers will measure the actual distance, they do not have to consider the curvature of the earth, because if it is curved, they are measuring the distance around the curve.

Flat earthers will always tell you that because the airplane pilots don’t adjust their courses for the curve of the earth that proves the earth is flat. But this is totally incorrect. Airline pilots have an altimeter that measures their distance from the surface of the earth, so they do adjust their course to keep the plane at a fixed altitude, so by adjusting the course to keep the plane at a certain altitude they are adjusting for the curve of the earth. Also this altimeter, also known as a gyroscope, has a horizon indicator which shows the orientation of the plane relative to Earth’s horizon. So to keep on course they adjust the planes direction to keep the horizon indicator in the altimeter horizontal and in the center. So what they are doing is constantly adjusting the course of the plane to keep it at a certain hight above the earth and to keep it pointing at the horizon, meaning if the earth is a globe they will be automatically traveling around the curve. So this is not proof that the earth is flat.

Flat earthers quote numerous scientific experiments that fail to prove the earth is moving including:

“Airy’s Failure” which they claim proves that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around.
And
The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change.

There may be some substance here as it does seem scientists have failed with experiments attempting to measure the movement of the earth. Again this is not proof the earth is flat, but may suggest the possibility of an error in the globe earth model in relation to the motion of the earth.

As well as the 6 proofs of scientific experiments failing to detect the motion of the earth presumed by the globe model they give us five proofs stating that our observations of the stars are not consistent with the different movements of the earth, sun and our galaxy supposed by the globe earth model. For example, in the globe earth model it is presumed the earth will be on the other side of the sun, almost 200 million miles away, in six months time so flat earthers presume if we move 200 million miles our change in location should be measurable by the positions of the stars in the sky. Of course the answer from science would be that the stars are light years away and that 200 million miles is insufficient for us to see any difference. So there are a number of “proofs” similar to this, stating that our view of the stars should be affected by the presumed movements of the earth in space but our view of the stars remains exactly the same, therefore they conclude that the earth is flat. Again this is not actually proof the earth is flat, it may point to a discrepancy in the globe model, but the scientists will say whatever movements the earth is making are insignificant in comparison to the vast distances to the stars.

There are another seventeen different examples of not being able to detect the movement of the earth including: “If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west.” So the flat earthers are presuming that when an object leaves the spinning earth it should stop spinning. Which is false of course. If an object is moving in a particular direction with the spin of the earth and you throw it in the air it will continue moving in the direction it was original moving and also move in the direction you throw it. For example if you are on a train you can throw a ball in the direction the train is moving or you can throw it the other way, you can throw it the same distance in both directions and the movement of the train is irrelevant, because you, the train, the ball and everything else is moving with the train. The movement of the train becomes your frame of reference and everything can move independently in its usual way within the train. So in the globe earth model the earth and the atmosphere and all the objects on the earth are moving with the earth, so this is the frame of reference and within that frame of reference everything will move in the ordinary way we would expect it to move. So all of these flat earth proofs are invalid, not recognizing that objects within a particular frame of reference have movements that are independent and not affected by the movement of the frame of reference itself.

There are eleven “proofs” pointing out the inconsistencies and magic properties believers in the globe invest in gravity. Presumably, According to the globe earth model, the frame of reference including the earth, everything on it, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere is being held together and being spun around with the earth by the force of gravity. Flat earthers find this difficult to believe. Examples of flat earth proofs include:

“If ‘gravity’ is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.”

And

“If ‘gravity’ is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.”

This is explainable again by the train example. You could have little birds flying around, bugs crawling around, you could even fly your drone inside the train carriage traveling at sixty miles an hour, and they could all move around exactly as if the train was stationary due to sharing the frame of reference of the moving train.

Of course this only works if there is no acceleration and with the earth rotating and spinning, that should cause acceleration, which should be measurable but so far it has not been measured.

So it is true that gravity is a somewhat fantastical concept. And flat earthers choose to not believe in this concept, considering gravity a concept invented by globe earthers to magically explain things they can not otherwise explain.

Instead of gravity flat earthers prefer to believe in density and buoyancy, they explain, “It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down.” So they think the reason we fall to the ground is because our bodies are more dense than the air. On the other hand they believe the reason a balloon filled with helium rises up into the sky is because it is lighter than the air. So scientists will agree that the balloon filled with helium rises up because it is more buoyant than the air but they argue we fall to the ground because of the force of gravity, not because we are heaver than the air.

So there appears to be scope for further research into the nature of gravity and buoyancy. This is again, however, not proof that the earth is flat, whatever is happening, be it caused by gravity or buoyancy, it would happen on both a globe or flat earth. However when one studies gravity there does appear to be a fantastical and arbitrary nature assigned to it by science .

There are thirteen flat earth proofs relating to NASA faking space. All flat earthers at least believe NASA has presented us with fake pictures of the globe earth. NASA only claim to have one real photograph of the earth from space, the famous “Blue Marble” which we have all seen millions of times, plus a couple of ‘earth rising’ pictures from the moon. All other NASA earth photos they openly admit are created in Photoshop by combining images and data from various low earth orbit satellites and pasting it onto a globe. So it is because of these globe earth photos that flat earthers are very keen to prove the fakery of NASA. It is not the purpose of FlatEarthFacts to discuss the fakery of NASA but there is plenty of information available on this elsewhere. But in any case NASA producing fake globe images of the earth does not prove the earth is flat, but it would certainly help to prove that we have no evidence the earth is a globe.

There are eight flat earth proofs stating that distances in the Southern Hemisphere prove the earth is flat. The idea is, if the earth was flat, the distances south of the equator for a particular latitude would be greater than for the corresponding latitude north of the equator. There may be some truth in this, I have done some personal calculations which did seem to indicate distances in the south were greater than in the north and also calculated a circumference of the earth in places in Australia greater than that at the equator. But this is only preliminary, has not been verified and not at all confirmed. But we do have scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson saying the earth is “Pear Shaped,” which would mean he is confirming that it is actually bigger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere. So it may be true, but from my measurements at least it is not big enough to make it flat, but pear shaped is a possibility. Still it requires research and this is not proof the earth is flat.

There are six proofs claiming the non-existence of direct Southern Hemisphere flights prove the earth is flat. But this is totally incorrect. These Southern Hemisphere flights do exist and I have personally flown between Auckland and Buenos Ares and have another video documenting this.

There are seven proofs claiming differences in climate in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres prove the earth is flat. For example comparing Antartica, the coldest place on earth with virtually no life with Iceland which has a relatively mild climate and many native plants and abundant animal life. So this is interesting, what is the reason for the big difference as if the earth is a globe they should have similar climates. However again, this is not proof the earth is flat.

There are three proofs claiming no midnight sun in Antartica proves the earth is flat. But there is midnight sun in Anatartic as I have proven in a different video. So this is totally incorrect.

They give us many other proofs, none of which actually prove the earth is flat, too many to go through here however I have covered the main ones.

So the summary is out of the list of 200 proofs that the earth is flat there is not a single proof that the earth is flat, there are a few valid questions and challenges to various aspects of the globe earth model, a reasonable questioning of the magic of gravity and many aspects of NASA, but certainly no proof that the earth is flat.

## 78 Replies to “Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Analyzed — Video”

1. James

You don’t have a sufficient understanding of science or technology to make valid points of view in either direction. The confused explanation of an aircraft altimeter, thinking it is a gyro rather than a pressure sensing device and believing pilots need to adjust altitude as they move is embarrasing!

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi James

Yes. That is a problem for most of the Flat Earthers, including Eric Dubay, they don’t understand science. Not that science is always correct, but there is a process, and the scientists do generally have logical and conceivable explanations for their theories which are very often not understood by the flat earthers.

Pilots do adjust their altitude as they fly. Not necessarily because they would fly off into space if they didn’t. Flat earthers can not get their minds around gravity, the idea that there is a force pulling things towards the center of the earth. Now gravity may or may not be exactly as it is imagined by science, but there is some force that is pulling us down. That is undeniable even by the flat earthers. And if one was to imagine that force was towards the center of a globe earth then if you were to fly around that globe earth then if you stay at the same altitude that force will always pull you towards the center of the earth and that will give you an equal force if you stay at the same distance from the earth. But it will pull you down, so you do have to counteract that force of gravity by going up. And sometimes, due to conditions, you will be pushed up also. So certainly the pilots have to keep their altitude constant, but their course will be automatically curved around the earth by gravity.

So flat earthers, when considering the globe model, have to consider gravity, because without gravity, the globe earth model is impossible.

• William

I can see mt hood from just north of Redmond and that is around 100miles away saying you can only see 10-20 miles is nonsense. This is same non sense you just say science this and science that. Anyone who thinks life can just spawn out of puddles when hit by lightning(evolution) is out of their minds. The universe only exits because we are aware of it. “Scientists” say that the stars are still there in the day so if the earth has two sides(round) then how can everyone see the same stars at the same time. And celestial navigation wouldn’t work if the earth was round and everything in the universe was spinning around that would make the stars change all the time as out perspective of space changes and then they would be useless as navigation tools. No one knows what the stars are they flicker and change colour and have been in the same positions senice the beginning of time. They spin in a circle above our heads if the earth was spinning they should appear to rise and set over the horizons not spin in a circle. If the earth was round then people wouldn’t spend so much time trying to remove and cover up information about it. That alone proves its true and they want you to think there are aliens but those gray things are demons from hell not from “space” the fairy tale is true and most people are to weak to handle it.

2. Finlay MacPherson

On a rotating globe, airlines would find it impossible to maintain approximately equal travel times flying east to west and west to east as is currently evident. For example, Vancouver Canada to London England and return. At the equator, how would it even be possible to fly forward at 500 km/hour if going against global spin of over 1,000 km/hour? We are all electrical beings in an electromagnetic environment. Nikola Tesla understood much of this. Why ignore what is obvious, even Copernicus stated the globe earth was a deception.

• Flat Earth Facts

It is because everything is spinning with the earth. The planes are also spinning with the earth. The earth is spinning, the plane is spinning with the earth, it takes off, it is still spinning with the earth. Connected like with a stick. That is what the globe earth model presumes. That up to a certain distance everything is fixed to the earth’s rotation. That is called the ‘frame of reference’. So it is like if you have a potters wheel and it is spinning and there are some ants walking around on the wheel, they are spinning with the wheel, so on the wheel they maintain their relative distances and can move around as if the wheel was not spinning and still retain their relative distandces.

So for the globe earth people gravity is the magic ingredient that makes everything possible. It is, according to them, the gravity that is locking the plane to the rotation of the earth, just as the ants on the potter’s wheel are locked to the rotation of the wheel. So that is the frame of reference and any movement of the plane is independent of the rotation of the earth. As the movement of the ants on the potter’s wheel is independent to the movement of the wheel [the frame of reference].

So this is what the globe earth people believe. The magic gravity locks everything, up to some distance, to the rotation of the earth, and everything, atmosphere, planes, birds, clouds, etc, it is all rotating with the earth.

• Jerry Paul

So, you all have it slightly incorrect. If earth is spinning 1000 mph eastward, then so is everything else on earth. When we travel west in a plane, we add the speed of the planet to the planes speed, relative to an arbitrary spot that is stationary outside the system. If we go east we subtract the speed of the plane from earths speed, also relative to an outside stationary spot. No matter which way we travel we are still going with the planets speed. Gravity is constantly pulling us towards the center of the earth, the largest mass near us, and only by speeding up faster than earth or slowing down slower than earth can we escape its gravity well. You really have to maintain 3 locations in the equation, and 3 speeds to understand what is happening. The locations are the earth, yourself, and the arbitrary stationary spot outside the system. The speeds are whatever the three locations are traveling. Now, to remove yourself from inside the system of earth you must either speed up or slow down to match the separate speed and location of the other system, which ever system you choose. Once you are traveling at the same speed as the other system, and if that new system is large enough, you will be gravitationally bound to the new system but you must match that new systems speed and location, that is the key. Its not just that magic gravity has you bound to any system, its also that you are matching speeds with the system you are in. For instance, gravity alone does not make you bound to earth, its that you match it’s speed. Say you find yourself traveling at 10,000 mph in relation to earth coming in from a separate system, You would fly right by earth and earths gravity would only slightly affect your overall direction and speed, unless your on a collision course. You can be well within earths gravitational field but because you are not matching its speed you will not be bound to that system. So it’s not just gravity that affects you and then at some arbitrary distance it stops, you must match all of that systems properties to be considered part of the system. In order for the times to be different in a plane ride going east as opposed to traveling west, your plane would have to magically remove the speed given to it by the speed of earth and suddenly, right after liftoff, match the speed of the arbitrary spot out side the earth, plane, you system. This cannot easily be accomplished, at least not instantaneously because of a well know law of nature we call conservation of momentum. The only way to get around this is to speed up or slow down in relation to our 3 speeds and 3 locations.
I know, sounds like 5th grade all over again but some people maybe missed that week in school so here you go.

3. Finlay MacPherson

You fail to understand that an airplane can fly in either direction, at the same speed either way. How is this possible if the Earth is rotating in one direction only?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Finlay

It has been explained a number of times. The plane is already moving with the earth. So when it takes off it keeps moving with the earth, and the other propulsion from the engines of the plane adds to or subtracts from its existing motion with the earth.

The problem with this of course, is the plane has to remain connected with the earth and it has to keep travelling at the same speed of the earth so the propulsion of the plane is just moving it from one spot on the earth to another, as if the earth were stationary.

I have never really seen a convincing explanation of how this could happen.

The argument is based on the “frame of reference,” that is the earth and the plane share the same frame of reference and because the movement of the plane and the rotation of the earth are locked into this single frame of reference, the rotation of the earth has no effect on the plane because the plane is rotating with the earth, locked in sync with the earth. So if the plane exerts some thrust, as it does from its jet engines, that will simply move it from one place on the earth to another, and as the plane is locked to the rotation of the earth, it won’t make any difference what direction the plane is flying in, the rotation of the earth will have no effect, because the plane is locked to the movement of the earth…

But exactly how the plane is locked to the rotation of the earth? Certainly we can accept that at the moment of takeoff the plane is moving with the earth and after it takes off it will still be moving with the same velocity as the earth. But after it takes off presumably it disconnects from the earth’s rotation and is no longer locked to it?

You can imagine you are spinning around on one of those roundabouts they sometimes have in playgrounds. You are spinning with it and if you try to get off you will still be spinning. But when you get off actually you are in a different frame of reference, and your spinning is no longer locked to the spinning of the roundabout. So actually that should be the situation with the plane as it takes off. Sure, it will be spinning with the earth in the same direction and speed of the earth [minus its own speed] but when it takes off then its movement should become independent of the rotation of the earth.

It is very hard to believe the plane could remain locked in the same frame of reference as the earth when it is no longer connected to the earth, as you do not remain in the same frame of reference as the roundabout when you get off it, although when you get off it you are certainly still spinning at the same speed as the roundabout, once you are off it, you are no longer locked to the same spinning speed as the roundabout.

So this has never been explained satisfactorily as far as I know. It is a mystery, how an airplane can remain locked in the same rotational frame of reference as the earth, making travel in any direction equal over a spinning globe. So for this to be possible on a spinning globe the plane has to be locked to the rotation of the earth, even when it is disconnected from the earth. Gravity is the answer they will give. But if gravity can do this it is truly magic.

• Jerry Paul

Yes Finlay,
I can understand your confusion. It does not seem intuitively that a plane could go in any direction and still match the direction of earth’s rotation. You have to think deeper than intuition. If a plane takes off to the south, which is 90 degrees off the rotational direction of earth spin, the plane is still traveling the same speed as earth, only sideways. No matter which direction it takes off from it maintains it’s momentum in relation to the earth. Only by using some kind of powered thrust can a flying object work against that conserved momentum. Don’t worry if this concept is difficult to wrap your head around, even educated scientist can have a hard time comprehending orbital mechanics.
We are a species of primate who evolved using a set of specific skills to survive in the harsh landscape of the African Savannahs, not to figure out the non intuitive mechanics of orbital momentum. It is difficult to climb out of the trees next to our primate cousins and work our way up to the awsome level we find ourselves at today. Think of it like this, if you are flying in a plane and you toss a ball up towards the ceiling, does the ball fly backwards at the speed the plane is traveling forward? No, it maintains the momentum imparted to it by the speed of the plane. No matter which direction you throw the ball it still maintains it’s original speed, plus or minus what ever speed your throw imparts onto it in relation to the plane. It does not simply fly off opposite the directional travel of the plane. Throw it left, right forward, or back the ball keeps up with the plane because it is bound to the planes reference point, unless some outside force acts upon it, like the wind for instance.
And actually the planet is not rotating very fast compared to it’s size. It does take a whole 24 hours just to make one 360 degree spin. It only seems fast because we are used to the speed of human, which when trying to figure out things like orbital mechanics can be rather sluggish. Keep thinking deeply though.

• Flat Earth Facts

Jerry Paul you are regurgitating the “official line” without thinking about it. It is you that needs to do some deep thinking.

PS: the earth is spinning at about 1000 miles per hour at the equator, that is way faster than the speed of sound. It is not very slow at all…

The “official line” is flawed. The “official line” is the plane and the earth are linked and movements of the earth move the plane, even after the plane is in the air and no longer connected with the earth.

Yes. Of course it is true, at the time of takeoff the plane and the earth are both spinning and the plane has got the motion of the spinning earth when it takes off. But the problem is, for what we experience to be actually happening, the earth has to spin the plane around in the sky at the same speed as the rotation of the earth, to keep the plane effectively over the same spot on the earth, so the only motion experienced by the travellers on the plane in relation to the earth is that caused by the propulsion system on the plane.

So sure, your idea holds at the time of takeoff. But when there is no longer any physical connection with the earth there should be no more spin exerted on the plane from the rotation of the earth except the original spin it had when it took off. And, as we understand it, that initial spin which matches the spin of the earth, that energy will be gone very quickly due to the resistance of the air the plane faces when moving through the sky.

That is why planes require propulsion. It is not that you can just throw them up and they will keep flying, of course a glider can fly on the wind, but that is a different thing.

So no one can explain how this works Jerry Paul. You have not been able to explain it. Certainly you are correct in stating that at the time of takeoff the plane is spinning with the earth and after it takes off it will still be spinning. But that spinning energy will very soon be dissipated due to the air resistance, etc. There is no mechanism that I have ever heard described that could keep on execrating a force so strong to spin the plane with the rotation of the earth, as if it were tied to the earth, while it is 10 miles up in the sky.

So this is truly a mystery Jerry Paul and if you understand how it works please explain it.

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
Ite really simple physics. A plane continues to spin with the earth because of newtons second law of motion. The planes angular momentum is conserved around the center of axis, which is the center of earth’s gravitational field. I don’t know any other way to explain it than that.

• Flat Earth Facts

Rubbish. I gave the example, you are on a roundabout, one of those rotating things children sometimes play on in the park. So you are spinning around with the roundabout. You get off, you have go the angular momentum of the roundabout so you are still spinning at the same speed and in the same direction as the roundabout. But once you are disconnected from it you experience other forces, like the force of gravity pushing you down to the ground and the force of the earth when your feet touch it.

So it is the same for the plane taking off, disconnecting from the earth. Yes. At the time of takeoff it has got exactly the same rotation as the earth, but there are forces acting on the plane, Newton’s law, that is for in a perfect vacume when there are no other forces or resistance, not valid for the plane because it is facing forces like the wind for example, which may be in a different direction from the rotation of the earth, gravity, which is forcing the plane back down to the ground, so that inertial force from the spinning earth on the plane, it is very very quickly dissipated.

So these things have never been understood. Science can not explain at all what is happening here. They just ignore it, pretend it does not exist. They believe in the magic invisible rope that connects the earth to the plane and keeps the plane rotating in synchronisation with the earth even though it is not connected….

• Jerry Paul

Due to gravity and conservation of angular momentum the air, the plane , and the birds and bugs all remain spinning with the earth, and the air resistance is nearly negligible although the qind soes have some effect on trust The plane. The only way to counter the angular momentum of the plane is through the propulsion systems. I’m not sure why some people doesn’t realize these questions have been solved along time ago. Its like asking, “why shouldn’t I touch a hot stove?” We don’t need to rehash these fundamentals.

• Flat Earth Facts

This is total rubbish Jerry. Angular momentum is not conserved by the plane. It is dissipated quite quickly. Otherwise you could just get it put the plane up there and get it up to speed and due to the conservation of angular momentum it would just keep on going in the same direction at the same speed. But no. Gravity will pull it down and the air resistance will slow it down.

So the plane has got the rotational angular momentum of the spinning of the earth at takeoff, for sure, but because it is no longer connected, unless there is some invisible magic connection between the plane and the earth that keeps pulling the plane around in the air in synchronisation with the earth below it, that angular momentum the plane had at the time of takeoff will very quickly dissipate and the plane will gradually no longer have that rotational momentum from the earth.

So it is this invisible magic connection between the plane and the earth which has never been explained by science.

• Sarnaduti

Well, when the plane is disconnected from the ground, there is the gravitational force of course that can slow down the plane, but that is counteracted by the lift forces that are generated by the air around the aircraft and its wings due to pressure differences between the upper and lower points of the wing (Bernoulli principle).

With those 2 forces cancelled, the other force remaining is the air drag in the backward direction that can slow down the plane, for which we use propulsion.

The assumption here is that the air also spins at the same rate the earth is spinning, and so does the plane, and the the air drag in the direction of rotation of earth does not contribute to slowing down the plane. The air drag only slows down the forward direction of the plane, for which propulsion is needed.

• Flat Earth Facts

You are just stating the obvious: “The assumption here is that the air also spins at the same rate the earth is spinning, and so does the plane,” but not providing any explanation how this could happen. This system is operating exactly like the children spinning on a roundabout. They are all sharing a single rotating frame of reference. Or the ants walking around on a potter’s wheel. But in all cases of this shared frame of reference we have experience with there is actually a shared frame of reference, like the roundabout or the potters wheel.

When the children get off the roundabout or the ants get off the spinning potters wheel, they are no longer sharing the same frame of reference as the roundabout or potters wheel. They are still spinning and initially they do share the same rotational movement of the wheel or roundabout. But that very quickly dissipates as they are no longer in the shared field with the rotating object.

So scientists just say these things, like, “Obviously the plane, the clouds, the atmosphere, obviously it just rotates with the earth. But they have not provided any mechanism which could extend the frame of reference of the rotating earth to seamlessly include the atmosphere and anything that might be in the atmosphere in the same field of reference. It requires a physical connection. Because your plane has to be physically pulled around by the rotation of the earth, long, long, long after it has no physical connection with the earth, and long long after the initial inertia it had from the rotation of the earth has disapated.

So there is no way science can explain this.

It remains a great mystery. And when these scientific people are faced with a mystery they don’t understand and can’t explain they pretend it does not exist, and get angry if you push the point.

But there is some real magic going on here. Because we have no idea of any physical system that can keep the airplane locked into the same field of reference as the rotating earth long long long after it has no physical connection with the earth.

If you forget the airplane and just take something that has no propulsion at all, a balloon. Assuming there is no wind, it will just sit up there, directly above the place where you send it up. That is actually what we would expect on a stationary earth. But on a rotating earth we would expect it to go up and keep on rotating because it was rotating when it left the earth. On the earth it is pulled around because the earth is rotating. But when it goes up in the sky, with the exception of its initial rotation, there is nothing to pull it around with the earth’s rotation, and it will rotate with the earth, but it will face friction with the air and will loose that initial rotational energy sooner rather than later. So it will start to drift in the opposite direction of the rotation of the earth.

Otherwise what is that magical force that keeps the balloon locked with the rotation of the earth even though it has no physical connection with the earth. Mysterious magic!

• Sarnaduti

Hi Flat Earth Facts,

There are various types of forces acknowledged by the scientists. Some are called contact forces, like kicking a ball, and some are non-contact forces, or action-at-a-distance forces like gravity, electromagnetic force, magnetic force, which do not require contact. This is already admitted by science. Of course, they do not know why these forces exist and act like that, or answer deeper questions like origin, etc., but they accept them as natural properties.

Your analogy with ants walking around on a potter’s wheel or children spinning on a roundabout are not exactly suitable with respect to Earth’s rotation. The potter’s wheel and the roundabout do not exert the “action-at-a-distance” force called gravity on the ant after it has left, in a noticeable magnitude, because the mass of the potter’s wheel and the roundabout and the ant are very, very small to exert any significant gravitational force. However, the Earth is a large body, with a noticable gravitational field. And scientists say that gravity is proportional to the mass of the object. Gravity, really, is applicable only to massive objects like the Earth, not to small objects like potter’s wheel, etc.

So gravity pulls the plane even after it has left the Earth. And it is obvious gravity pulls things not connected to Earth anyways, like an apple dropped is pulled downward.

How they explain that the air is spinning with the Earth is that there is viscous/frictional force between the layers of air. Now this force will be proportional to the gravitational force. Since air has a huge mass, it is pushed down toward the Earth with great force, and the layers of air kind of “stick” with each other. The lowest layer of air is firmly stuck to Earth. The next higher layer is stuck less, and so on. This forms the “physical contact” of the Earth with the plane and air.

The problem is especially at high altitude air layers should be more free to move and not necessarily spin at the same rate with the Earth. At that time, we should expect the air slows down the plane eventually as it is not moving in the same direction as the plane.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. Gravity, magic gravity… But gravity is pulling the plane down to the ground, towards the center of the earth. That is always a downwards force. It can not hold the airplane in synchronous orbit with the earth. Yes gravity can cause the apple to fall to the ground from the tree. Although that can also be explained because the density of the apple is much greater than the density of the air, so naturally more dense objects will fall down through a less dense medium [the apple through the air] even without the help of gravity. If apples were filled with hydrogen, for example, they would be less dense that the air, and when the tree let them go they would float up into the sky, gravity would not act on them then.

Anyhow the point is you are just repeating what the scientists say, they can not explain this, they do not understand it, they have no idea why it is happening, it is a great mystery. What is the force that is holding the plane and spinning it around in synchronisation with the rotation of the earth even long after any rotational force the plane initially had from the spinning earth has dissipated? Magic gravity of course, but how???

Gravity can pull things down towards the center of the earth. That is the theory anyhow. But that does not explain what is effectively holding the plane over a fixed point on the earth and spinning it synchronised to the rotation of the earth. That must be happening if the earth is rotating because we can explain all the other movements of the airplane by the propulsion and wind currents, otherwise, minus the propulsion and wind, it is just sitting over a fixed point on the earth, rotating with the rotation of the earth, long long long after the initial rotational energy it had synchronised with the earth’s rotation when it took off, has dissipated.

• Sarnaduti

Hi Flat Earth Facts,

Yes, I totally agree that scientists do not have any idea about the underlying causes of why those forces are acting like the way it is acting. And it is also never proven if “every” object is attracting “every” other object with a force called gravity, as they claim. These things are hard to prove from our point anyway because we are minuscule compared to the sizes of these planets. I understand that. I’m just speaking on the basis of their assumptions and trying to understand reality with respect to those assumptions and see if they make sense or break in any way.

Based on the theory, the downward force of gravity can hold the airplane in synchronous orbit by providing centripetal acceleration, if there is no force that dissipates the initial motion of the plane. You keep on mentioning that the initial motion will be dissipated. But how will that energy be dissipated? Let us assume we have a balloon that is moving up, removing the need for propulsion, and also there are no wind currents. Based on the theory, the air will not dissipate that initial motion because the air is also rotating in the same direction at the same speed. And the gravitational force which already exists between the balloon and the Earth takes care of the spinning by providing a centripetal acceleration, and the buoyant force then keeps it in equilibrium. Of course, I understand this all happens magically and automatically somehow all these forces add up to zero and keep it in equilibrium and the balloon stays where it is! But there are of course other ways also we can make forces add up to zero, like a stationary Earth, but only downward and upward force (buoyant force) exist.

By the way, if apple falling down due to “density”, as you say, why does it fall “down” only and not “up”? Because the apple is also surrounded by less dense air above, but it never falls “up”. It means there is a downward force. Also, things fall down in vacuum also, right?

• Flat Earth Facts

OK, lets say everything, including the air, the butterflies, the atmosphere, the birds and the airplanes are all joined together in the same effectively physically connected frame of reference, my question remains, what is the magic force that is holding all these things together and spinning them all around in exactly in synchronisation with the rotation of the earth?

You, like the scientists are just trying to change the subject, to divert away from this question, which no one can answer, which is a great mystery, and which can not even be reasonably explained by magic gravity.

My whole question is what is this magic force that is holding everything, the atmosphere, the clouds, the butterflies, the airplanes all locked together rigidly in a single frame of reference?

That is the point and you are trying to avoid this and say, just imagine it is all locked together and all moving with the rotation of the earth… But that is not my question. My question is what is the magic force that could be holding it all together and pulling everything around with the rotating earth. That is the question, that is the point.

I agree, of course, they, the scientists, have come up with a ‘logical’ explanation, presuming it is all in one frame of reference and all rotating with the earth. But my question is what is the force that is holding it all together and pulling everything around with the rotation of the earth.

As far as the apple you have a logical flaw:

“By the way, if apple falling down due to “density”, as you say, why does it fall “down” only and not “up”? Because the apple is also surrounded by less dense air above, but it never falls “up”. It means there is a downward force. Also, things fall down in vacuum also, right?”

An apple can not fall up due to density in the air because it is more dense than the medium it is in, the air. If you put the apple in water, however, it will defy gravity and fall up.

Apple is always more dense than the air. To fall up apple would have to be less dense than the air, like if you filled an empty apple skin with hydrogen, then it would fall up, defying gravity.

• Flat Earth Facts

PS: Yes. Everything falls down in a vacuum, but that is because a vacuum is, by definition, the least dense medium. If somehow you could find something that was less dense than a vacuum that would also fall up in a vacuum, defying gravity.

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
If gravity is the answer to how the planes angular momentum is conserved and a person simply doesn’t believe gravity exists then what would their answer to why the planes angular momentum IS conserved be? If someone disagrees with the official answers of physics then they should have a competing explanation or hypothesis. If the earth is not rotating on its center of gravity and the conservation of angular momentum is not the reason the plane moves with the earth, then what is the reason? Without a reasonable alternative answer or even a basic idea to explain it then what would the reason be for disregarding the current explanation?
I have a hard time discarding a workable, repeatable, logically functional theory for explaining a particular attribute of this universe’s physical laws without a competing theory to replace the original. Without a better theory that describes these laws in more detail with better experiments that confirm them in the simplest terms available, what is the reason for a lack of belief in the existing model?
I have a hypothesis about the reason, and it all has to do with emotional and mental mistrust in authority. Sometimes a persons own ego will not allow them to accept that they may be wrong about a deeply held belief and thats where confirmation bias and self dilusion take over where logic and the ability to change what they believe based on data that contradicts their prior belief fails them.
I will admit that we all are susceptible to these all too human flaws, myself included, and without an awareness of these mental blocks that allow us to continue deluding ourselves, there is nothing to alter our biases. Is there a possibility that the reason you and others refuse to accept the existing model without a reasonable alternative is because of a deep seated mistrust of science and the scientific method? It is a real thing and it’s called conspiricy mentality.
You keep saying that I have an almost religious belief in NASA and of science in general but does that also mean that you have a religious mistrust of the same things?
I think we all have a hard time admitting that we are not prefect in our reasoning skills and that is at the core of our diagreement. It has less to do with the facts and more to do with how much we trust the findings of modern science.
I keep trying to not degrade anyones beliefs because I believe in the golden rule. It seems I keep irritating you all though and that is not my intention. So please accept my apologies if that seems to be the case. in any case I do not see how we could ever come to an agreement on certain topics but we could at least agree to understand that we all are imperfect beings and none of us has all the answers. I guess it is all about how we see and trust the methods that give us these theories in the first place. Would you agree with that statement?

• Flat Earth Facts

Jerry your idea is just believe NASA. But the evidence does not support NASA’s story they sent men to the moon in the 1960’s. And even you should be able do to see that.

Science has been wrong so many times in the past and many of the things science preaches today, they are also wrong.

You have to accept this. OK, sure, there are nice theories which may be to some extent mentally satisfying, but how far these theories actually match the reality, that is still open for investigation.

My point is that your blind belief and surrender to NASA and the scientists, even though, for example, there so much evidence NASA did not send men to the moon, is no different from On the Level who blindly believes there are no satellites because Eric Dubay says so, even though there is so much evidence and proof satellites exist.

So the only difference is you believe whatever NASA and the scientists tell you without thinking about it or questioning it and On the Level believes anything Eric Dubey says without thinking about it or questioning it. It is blind faith in science vs. blind faith in flat earth…

• On the level

Hi Jerry,

Other theories that attempt to explain apparent gravitational phenomenon exist. Nikola Tesla posited the Dynamic theory of gravity. You can read a little intro below:

https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/dynamic-theory-of-gravity/

IMO electromagnetic lines of force better explains the motions of celestial bodies than Relativity or resting on Newtonian assumptions. Nikola Tesla thought so and perhaps better followed the relevant physics of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell.

It’s important to remember our actual knowledge of what is IMO improperly called “outer space” is much less than claimed by NASA and so called experts. You are correct if as you seem to suggest that humility in this regard is needed. The best place to start as usual is with provable, observable facts not conjecture, especially from politically motivated men trying to maintain their government paychecks.

• Sarnaduti

Hi Flat Earth Facts,

Yes, that is a good point against a rotating Earth. Scientists would say that the atmosphere also rotates along with the Earth at the same speed. So the atmosphere would not actually contribute to dragging the plane down, as you say, because the plane is not moving against the direction of the air.

However, it is difficult to see if the air, which is not a rigid body, indeed moves like that. Moreover, at higher altitudes, the air should be more free to move, due to lesser action of gravity. They say viscosity/friction between air layers holds it, but again, air is even “freer” than water… We also can’t do experiments reliably at that altitude, as you pointed earlier.

In addition, as I alluded to in another post, we should be able to feel or measure the forces in a non-inertial frame of reference that should vary in a periodic fashion. For the motion of the frame of reference to be irrelevant, it actually has to be an inertial frame, meaning it is either at rest, or moving with constant speed in a straight line with respect to another inertial frame. Otherwise, if it is not an inertial frame, as the Earth is told to be by scientists, we should be feeling forces at different times of the day, depending on which direction we are accelerating/decelerating, repeatable in a periodic fashion – as day and night is periodic.

PS: I notice Eric Dubay’s book title is really “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”, not “200 proofs the Earth is flat”. So they are actually not 200 proofs the Earth is flat. So if flat-earthers are basing their arguments on this book, they are using a book that attempts to disprove the spinning globe Earth model, not particularly proving the Earth is flat.

Sarnaduti

• Finlay MacPherson

Jerry, it can be a very confusing subject alright, but perhaps the following will better explain my point of view. If you consider the Earth to be a spinning globe, then any object sitting stationary anywhere along the Equator is moving through space eastward at a speed of over 1000 mph. You may call this the object’s inertial momentum. Now also consider a vertical rocket launch. The force (thrust) of the engines must be sufficient to overcome the force (your magic gravity?) keeping the mass of the rocket on the ground, otherwise it will not lift off. By similar logic, an airplane sitting on the ground at the equator can fire up it’s engines, and if flying east can lift off and cruise at roughly 500 mph. Those same engines would not even move the plane, never mind lift it off the ground into the air to fly westward, as they would lack sufficient force (thrust) to overcome the 1000 mph eastward inertial momentum. Movement in any frame of reference is simply a matter of force vectors, and unless this Earth is stationary and flat I have yet to understand how airplanes with fixed size engines are able to fly in any direction at approximately the same speed. Seems to me this would only be possible for masses of zero inertial momentum, only possible on a stationary and motionless Earth. How is that for deep thinking?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Finlay

Try to understand it. The globe earth explanation is valid if you accept their premise. The idea underpinning the globe earth understanding is the plane and the earth are in the same frame of reference even when the plane takes off and is no longer connected to the earth. So, according to their understanding, the plane and the earth are moving together. So it is like you are flying in an airplane and it is going 600 miles per hour forward. But within the plane you can walk towards the front of the plane, with the direction of the plane, and towards the back of the plane, against the direction the plane is travelling, with no difference.

That is because you and the plane share the same frame of reference.

So similarly if a plane taking off the earth shares the same frame of reference as the earth and the atmosphere, everything is locked together, moving together, so the plane can fly in any direction with no concern for the rotation of the earth.

So you have to understand this point. It is a very simple thing to understand. And that is how the globe earthers explain it.

So they have a valid explanation and understanding as to what is happening.

But exactly how the plane and the atmosphere can share the same frame of reference as the earth without being connected to it, that is a mystery. I think they can not explain this part.

• Jerry Paul

Finlay,
Think on this for a moment. Every plane that takes off and flys west is actually still traveling east, unless or until it is a plane that can fly faster than 1000mph. When the plane is on the ground facing west it is already traveling backwards 1000mph to the east. When it gets in the air and flys west, you must subtract the speed of the plane from the speed of the earth spin. If your plane is traveling west at 500 mph, you are still going east at 500 mph only backwards. So relitive to the center of the earth at the equator, a plane going 500 mph west is still traveling east with the planet at 500 mph, but relative to the surface of earth the plane is going 500 mph west. Until your plane reaches 1000 mph going west, it is still traveling east at what ever speed under 1000 mph you are going. Im not sure if this is an easy concept to comprehend but there you go.
Relative to the surface you can travel west as well as any other direction. Relative to the center of the earth or a stationary point outside of the earth system you will still be going east with the spin of earth until you reach the 1000 mph westward. At that speed you will just be stationary relative to east-west travel relative to the center. Only after you surpass 1000 mph westward will you truly be traveling west. If you are going 1010 mph west, then your actually going 10 mph west relative to the center. Crazy thought huh. Lets see how many people comprehend that one. Good luck.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes Jerry, you are correct. But the plane is only moving with, being pulled around, by the earth when it is connected to the earth. This is the point you need to understand.

Any object can only be moving in one direction at one speed, at least when it is for in the sky. So the direction and speed of the plane is the product of the rotational force it still has from when it was rotating with the earth and the direction and speed of the engines and the force of the wind, etc. The product of all these forces then becomes the direction and speed of the plane in the air. It is now completely disconnected from the rotation of the earth underneath and the rotating earth now has no power to pull the plane around with it as it rotates.

Please seriously consider this point, it is the great flaw in the theory you are presenting.

• Sarnaduti

Hi Flat Earth Facts,

You are stating that an object always needs to be connected to something else in order to be pulled. Is that just your belief or are you able to prove it? Please remind yourself that magnets pull iron without being materially connected.

• Flat Earth Facts

Magnetism is not gravity…

I am saying that science has not given any mechanism by which all the objects in the atmosphere up to certain distance are pulled around in synchronization with the rotation of the earth, which would have to be what is happening if the earth is rotating.

You can not have a shared frame of reference, or single frame of reference unless the object is connected to that frame of reference.

If you have ants on a potters wheel walking around and the potters wheel is spinning the ants can go about their business and wander around without considering the rotation of the potter’s wheel. Because they are connected to the potters wheel and so is everything else they are dealing with. But shared frame of reference like this only works if there is a shared frame of reference, once the ants leave the potters wheel it does not work any more. Sure, initially they have got the spin of the wheel but when they are disconnected from it they are no longer being pulled around by it.

So gravity can not do this. Magnetism, that is completely irrelevant? There may be some force that is doing it? Who knows? That is not my point.

My point is that science has not given us any mechanism or explanation as to how this rotation of the earth is pulling around the airplane and the atmosphere and everything else in exact synchronization with it’s rotation.

That is the point. There is no explanation for this, it has never been explained, and it can not be gravity, as I have explained in other postings.

• Jerry Paul

Finlay,
I do understand your analogy between the rocket’s vertical lift off and the planes westward flight. However the two do not compare. You need 100 pounds of lift to lift 100 pounds vertically, right, to counteract the force of gravity. However to push that same 100 pounds westward you only need about 1 pound of trust, if it is on wheels or floating. The same is true to push it in any direction. All you need to do to push a thing horizontally is to overcome friction, and not the entire force of gravity. The plane experiences no friction other than the air resistance. So your analogy does not compare, the two forces required are not equal. If you are driving in a car 100 miles an hour and try to push something in the opposite direction inside the car, you do not need to o push it over 100 miles an hour to overcome its momentum given by the car, you only need what ever force it would take to push it at rest. The speed that you push the object backwards inside the car, subtracted from the speed of the car, is the actual speed of the object to an outside observer compared to their position and frame of reference. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding somewhat. If not you need to go back and figure out which point of fact you have gotten wrong and alter that belief so you need not alter all the facts and beliefs that come after that to make that one belief fit.

• Finlay MacPherson

Friction has absolutely nothing to do with this. Force is all that matters. To stop a mass of 1 ton moving at 1,000 mph requires tremendous force. To stop that 1 ton mass, and move it in the opposite direction requires even greater force. Just substitute the 1 ton mass with an airplane. That’s exactly the force required to fly an airplane west on a rotating globe.

• Jerry Paul

Finlay,
Nobody said you needed to stop anything. You only need to slow it down to start moving west compared to the surface speed. Realize this. Any force west is only slowing down your easterly speed. To come to a full stop, you would have to reach 1000 mph going west. Think about the planet moving and not as if it were motionless, even if you need to do this only in your imagination. Your points are easily understood, but I’m afraid they are incorrect. Would someone please help me out here, Finlay simply misunderstands movement in multiple directions at once.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

The plane, once it leaves the earth, it can not be moving in multiple directions at once. That is the problem. While on the ground, the spinning earth, it is spinning with the earth and can move in any other direction it likes and keep spinning with the earth, thus moving in two directions at once. That is possible because it is physically connected to the earth and in the same frame of reference as the earth.

But as soon as the plane takes off from the earth it is no longer connected to the earth and no longer connected to the same spinning frame of reference as the earth so it then only has one speed and direction. And that speed and direction of the plane in the air is the product of the spin it got from the earth and the force it got from the propulsion and direction of takeoff. So now the plane only has one speed and direction. It is now disconnected from the earth, flying freely in the sky. It still has got the spin component from the takeoff but it is no longer being pulled around by the earth as it was when it was physically connected from the earth. So this is the unsolvable problem for the globe earthers they will always try to hide and avoid discussing.

For the globe earth model to be true all the objects in the atmosphere including the plane, the air, the butterflies, the clouds, they have to be moving as if physically connected to the spinning earth, they have to share the same spinning frame of reference with the earth. But science has never given us any mechanism or explanation as to how this could be possible.

When the plane takes off from the spinning earth, that is a very different situation from the plane being on the spinning earth. On the spinning earth it moves with the spin of the earth and has its own independent movements also. So it is moving in two directions and speeds at the same time. But as soon as it takes off it takes off with the speed and direction of the spin of the earth plus or minus the speed and direction it is travelling on the earth. And as soon as it leaves the earth it is no longer connected to the earth, it no longer has two speeds and two directions, it only has one. The product of the speed and direction invested into it by the spin of the earth and the speed and direction it was going when it took off from the earth.

And once it is flying in the sky, there is no explanation as to how it could remain in the same spinning frame of reference as the earth.

So the spinning globe model fails miserably here…

4. Tesla

I have a telescope. I can see the planets are not flat.
Is it possible that only the earth is the exception? Hm…

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes, you are correct of course. Planets are not flat, we can see they are spherical, and quite clearly anyone who denies this has not looked… It is very easy to see there are spherical planets floating up there and some of them even have moons orbiting around them.

This is one of the main “proofs” that the earth is a globe, “as above, so below.” They observe the planets and presume the earth is just like one of those planets we see floating in the sky above us.

It is quite a reasonable, logical assumption.

But yes, there is still a possibility that the earth may be something different to what we see floating above our heads. We can not actually eliminate that possibility. So it is a reasonable, logical assumption that the earth / moon system is something like what we see in the sky when a planet has moons, but we have to remember it is only an assumption and it could be wrong. However the scientists, with the globe earth model, they have really produced a very good model explaining how the earth / moon / sun system works, accepting these assumptions, and their model does quite accurately predict our observations. So the globe earth people, they have got a very solid and scientific basis for their assumptions, but flat earth people have nothing at all…

So without being able to present another working model based on different assumptions it is hard to imagine how any intelligent person could disregard the globe earth model.

• Sarnaduti

Well, we can made a model and predict the future, even without using the physics, just by accumulating prior data. I am not sure how far the scientists actually use the “shape” of the Earth or moon or physics equations rigorously in their calculations to predict the future. Just by accumulating a large number of prior data points about the motion of the earth, moon, we can predict the future occurrences (e.g. using time-series forecasting), and this can occur on both a flat or globe earth.

• Flat Earth Facts

Problem is the globe earth model, it is a very good model, it very accurately predicts the things we actually observe happening, on the presumption that the earth is a spinning globe. On the other hand the flat earth people don’t have any agreed model. Everyone has a different idea, no one has a working model, they can not predict what we observe happening. Flat earth people, for example, can not even explain exactly how the sunrise and sunset times are working. They don’t even have a working map, they have nothing at all that works, no model, and nothing to predict our observations. Nothing works with the flat earth idea. If you make predictions based on the flat earth model those predictions almost never match what we actually observe, however if you make predictions based on the globe earth model, those predictions are almost always accurage.

Of course globe earth model has been constructed by reverse engineering based on the observations, but the point remains is they have been able to make a believable, logical, working scientific model, whereas the flat earth people don’t have anything that works.

You have to understand, flat earth people, they have no model, they can not explain properly our observations. So it is not a valid scientific proposition if you can’t present a working predictive model.

• Sarnaduti

Yes, I agree. The flat earthers do not currently have a working predictive model. As I see happening, the flat earth people are mostly in the business of questioning/criticizing the current globe earth model rather than coming up with an alternative model that explains things satisfactorily.

First of all, I have personally not visited all parts of the Earth and observed everything to conclude if the spinning globe earth is also really a good model or not – some parts of Earth are even remote and uninhabitable, or not allowed access to. Even for these “observations”, I have to believe what other people (in this case, also mortal human beings!) saw. With photoshop and all, it is also hard to sometimes believe these 3rd-party observations as well.

A model also is relative to what observations we are interested in. Some observations can be better explained by one model and not by another.

But even then, the spinning globe earth model also does not accurately predict some of these “observations”, like lack of perception of measurable periodic forces in a non-inertial reference frame, unexplainable horizontal distances, etc., so it is not a good model to predict reality in these instances. Also, how can you place smooth objects on each other, and they remain on place – friction is much less there and they should move due to earth’s rotation. It may be that earth is stationary, and it is that other bodies are moving.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. Of course, we don’t know if the earth is moving or if everything else is moving around the earth. It is not possible to determine that from within the system because the relative motion of both systems is the same. The only way to really see what is happening is to get outside the solar system and observe it working from a distance, or hear a description of how it works from someone who knows how it works.

However, we do see things that tend to indicate that the earth is stationary. We can’t measure any movement, can’t feel any movement, which is strange, because it is a rotational movement 1000 miles per hour at the equator and zero miles per hour at the poles. And there is an acceleration component to rotational movement. Anyhow the only thing they have got is that Foucault’s pendulum but that only proves there is a rotational movement. If the whole universe is rotating around the earth then that would certainly generate some rotational force which may well be strong enough to cause a pendulum to rotate like it does. After all the moon has got the power to move the oceans, if all the heavenly bodies are rotating around the earth I am sure they have got the power to move a pendulum.

So yes, I think you may be correct, the earth may well be stationary. That would certainly solve our problem with the planes flying but not being in any way effected by the rotation of the earth…

5. Tesla

Well, I can see live images from ISS. Fake ??

• Flat Earth Facts

There is obviously something up there in the sky with a camera on it taking the pictures…

6. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
That magic connection of the plane and the planet is gravity. If gravity is not real then what better explains how mass attracts mass? Mass that has momentum conserves that momentum indefinitely until acted upon by an outside force. Basic, already been figured out. And we know the planet is round because we have spacecraft that orbit a round earth. The evidence is unquestionably solid. If you all refuse to accept these scientifically sound kinds of evidence and refuses to accept that the scientific method is sound then why do you not question all the other discoveries made by that same method, such as medical science and mechanical sciences? Do you only question the science that allows us to reach and explore space and accept all the other proofs developed using that same method? How do you differentiate between real science and made up science? They are all connected using the same methods. We are able to explore space because all the other discoveries made by science works as well. There are far more reasons to accept that we have and are currently in space then there are reasons to discard the evidence. We have to compare the plus’ and mind’s and when we do the evidence for it are much more convincing. There are literally thosands of data points for believing then the few inconsistencies that lead you to disbelieve.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. Of course. The scientists always fall back on magic gravity. But the gravity is just pulling the plane down to the center of the earth. That is not going to help. Gravity is not capable of holding the plane in a fixed position above the earth and spinning it with the earth, which is what it would have to do, if the earth was rotating.

So don’t be under the illusion that the scientists have worked it all out. They have not. There are many mysteries still. And this is a great mystery, what is the incredibly strong force that is holding the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in the same frame of reference as the rotating earth and spinning it all around with the rotation of the earth.

The scientists have no idea and will just try to avoid discussing it or considering it. It’s not gravity. Gravity is only capable of pulling everything down to the center of the earth. Gravity can’t hold something in a fixed positon above the earth and pull it around with the rotation of the earth. There is no force we are aware of that could do this.

• Jerry Paul

It is gravity. Once you realize this one aspect of your belief system is incorrect, all the other questions you have about what is going on, what shape our planet is, and if it is spinning will fall into place. If one belief is incorrect then all the reasoning that comes after that will be flawed to try and make that one belief fit. I think this one aspect of your belief system, not believing that gravity exists, is creating all the other contradictions about the reality of the physical laws of our universe. That and the moon shot.

• Flat Earth Facts

You completely misunderstand Jerry, it has absolutely nothing to do with if I believe in gravity or not. For this exercise I am presuming gravity exists, as described by science. I am pointing out that gravity, as it is described to us by the scientists, is not at all capable of pulling the things in the sky around in synchronization with a rotating earth. Something must be doing this if the earth is rotating, and it can not be gravity, and science has not given us any explanation as to how this could happen. That is my point.

Magic gravity is your belief system, Jerry Paul, everything you can not understand, everything that is impossible, it is gravity. Anything impossible, unexplainable, illogical, it is gravity of course. That is your faith, that is your belief. You believe in gravity. You believe gravity can do the impossible, the illogical, the unbelievable.

It certainly can not be done by the gravity that science describes. Science describes gravity as force pulling objects towards the center of other objects. The earth is a very big object, it has a big gravitation field, which is so great compared to the gravitational field produced by any other object in our experience, that we can not test gravity or experiment with it to prove it or disprove it.

But anyhow Jerry, this is not my point. My point is science has not even proposed any theory that would enable every atom, which is physically disconnected from the spinning earth, but only up to a certain distance, to be somehow effectively physically connected to the same frame of reference as the spinning earth.

You have to concentrate on this point, the system you describe requires everything, the air, the butterflies, the airplanes, the clouds, the winds, everything, every atom has to be pulled around by the rotation of the earth. Otherwise the system you propose, rotating earth, that is not possible.

So there is a possibility the earth is not rotating. You need to consider that possibility also.

That is science. We don’t know if the earth is rotating or if the things we see in the sky are rotating. We see a rotational movement, we know there is a rotation, we can’t detect any rotation of the earth, it is just a theory, we have proposed the earth may be rotating, but we don’t know for sure.

There are two possibilities. One is the earth is rotating once a day, causing the day and night, and the other rotation is caused by the earth rotating around the sun at an angle. Earth always points north pole to to north polestar and south pole to southern celestial pole, so it is rotating at an angle compared to the sun and that gives the seasons as the earth rotates around the sun.

It is a very beautiful concept, it has been explained and explored very elaborately by many great thinkers over the ages, and it is truely well developed predictive scientific model.

But it has flaws. And one glaring flaw is we can not detect the rotation of the earth and we can not explain how, if the earth was rotating, every atom in the atmosphere, up to some point, is locked in the same frame of reference as the rotating earth. Every atom is somehow connected to the rotation of the earth and being pulled around as the earth rotates.

You can not say “this is gravity.” That is cheating. Because gravity is a force attracting all those atoms to the centre of the earth. That center of the earth does not rotate. It is always in the same position, even though the earth rotates the center of the earth, the point everything is attracted to due to the force of gravity, is stationary. So gravity does not have the power to hold all these atoms in their respective places and pull them around in synchronization with the rotation of the earth.

So yes, of course they have made a very elaborate model based on a rotating earth. But there is another, equally valid model based on a stationary earth with the same two rotational movements we experience invested, not in the earth, but in the objects around the earth.

Hard for us to imagine of course, because we have only been exposed to one of the two possibilities and have been brainwashed to believe a rotating earth is the only possibility. It is not. There is another possibility, with an equally valid scientific model, that is a stationary earth with the same rotational movements we experience invested in the objects that we actually see rotating in the sky. It may be actually that the reality is in accord with our actual physical experience. We don’t have any experience of the earth rotating, no one would ever imagine the earth was rotating, that is not what we experience. We experience a stationary earth and we see the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc, rotating above our heads. That is also a possibility, a very valid scientific possibility.

• Jerry Paul

Flat earth facts,
Ok, I do understand your point. It just does not fit with the way I see reality. When you state that we cannot determine if the earth is rotating or if everything is going around the earth. I know the earth is spinning and round because of the spacecraft we have sent up and looked back at the earth. If everything were spinning around earth those objects would have to be going extremely fast to travel all the way around us in 24 hours. But because you think all the photos from space are fake we can never agree that the earth is spinning and not the other way around. If it is just an exercise in thought then it is futile to imagine ‘what if’ when the premise does not fit reality. But I do comprehend your ideas and conclusions using the ‘what if’ analogy. There are some on this site who fail to see reality completely. And sorry, I do not see evidence of the Devine in anything. I do understand about insite and inspiration but think that the human ability to think and contemplate about our exsistance is actually the universe contemplating itself. The ultimate outcome of life caused by the strange and not understood reason behind the laws of our physical universe. So we can agree on some things.

• Flat Earth Facts

Very good Jerry. The thing is if the earth was stationary and everything was spinning around the earth, if you fly up there in space and start spinning around the earth you will think the earth is spinning and you are stationary.

So my point is that from within the system we can certainly determine that there is spinning, but what is spinning, from out point of view, that depends on what we take as our frame of reference.

So we don’t know, can’t know, from within the system, because the relative effect of the earth spinning or everything spinning around the earth is the same.

And this is also postulated by some great scientist. So it is a valid scientific idea also.

• Finlay MacPherson

Why is it so difficult for some to understand force and momentum? My point is quite simple. An object stationary on the equator of a supposed spinning globe (the Earth) is moving through space eastward at roughly 1,000 mph. If an airplane is to fly forward west it must have sufficient thrust to overcome that eastward speed, or in other words must have approximately triple the thrust as is required to fly eastward at 500 mph. Has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Mass in motion in one direction can only move in opposite direction if sufficient energy provided to overcome and exceed force of initial motion and direction. Ask Newton. Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity can provide further insight into areas of exploration yet to be fully understood. For all we know we create the illusion called reality subconsciously, and are all just separate dimensions trying to communicate from parallel universes in one cosmic consciousness. Time is the puzzle.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Finlay

Yes, you are correct, this issue has got nothing at all to do with gravity. All gravity can do is pull things down towards the center of the earth. So there is no way gravity can hold an airplane in the sky over a fixed point on the earth and pull that airplane around with the rotation of the earth.

So all this talk of gravity in relation to this problem is totally irrelevant. But for the scientists gravity is their magic force. Whenever they are stumped they just say “gravity.” And that’s it, “It’s gravity. Now can we change the subject. It’s gravity idiot. Shut up.”

But you are correct. Gravity can not help the scientists with this problem.

But you also do not understand their argument I think. Mostly the scientists, the globe earthers, etc, they have got a logical explanation for things, so their logical explaination for the whole atmosphere and everything in it moving in exact synchronisation with the rotation of the earth is that it is all a part of the same system, it is all in the same frame of reference, or in simple terms it is all joined together and the whole thing is moving, rotating as one unit. And so because the whole system is moving as one connected unit, the movement of the whole system becomes irrelevant to anything within the system.

So this part is very logical and it explains everything. So it answers all your questions. But the real problem with their theory is they have no explanation as to how it is actually all one connected system. For this theory to work everything has to be physically connected. The atmosphere, the airplane, the birds, the insects, the clouds, etc, they have to be all physically connected to the earth so when the earth rotates all these things move exactly with the rotation of the earth.

And it is a great mystery. No one can understand or imagine or propose any system which can take all these disconnected elements [earth, atmosphere, airplanes, birds, insects, etc] and effectively physically link them with the rotation of the earth.

What the scientists say is the plane is rotating with the earth when it takes off and so it continues to rotate with the earth after it takes off. That is true also, for a few seconds after it takes off, but it is no longer connected to the earth after it takes off, so that rotational energy it had from the spinning earth is very soon dissipated an there is no longer any connection with the rotating earth…

So then your point becomes valid.

So yes. There is a big mystery here that the scientists can not understand or explain, presuming the earth is rotating. Actually what we experience in this regard is totally consistent with what we would expect on a stationary earth and totally inconsistent with what we would expect on a rotating earth.

You know, the moon is not that far away, and the moon is, apparently rotating around the earth due to gravity, so why does the moon not rotate with the earth also? If gravity can pull the planes around the earth at the same speed of the rotation of the earth why not pull the moon around also at the same speed as the earth, and keep the moon permanently over one spot on the earth?

But their gravity is magic, it works magically to explain anything they can not understand…

7. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
If science is so wrong all the time tell me how you are reading your computer rigbt now? Or how did you drive to work or where ever you go if you own vehicle? Or how the hospital saves lives every day? All these things are possible because science is a powerful thing. Sure, science get things wrong just like any endeavor but that is the power of the scientific method, to keep at it until it is correct. I know of no other method that is as powerful as that. What else would you suggest to figure things out with? If you have a better method we would love to hear about it and how it is you come to your conclusions if not by way of the scientific method?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

Science does not make technology. They discover it. It is already there, the potential in the silicon for example, to make the computers.

It is all there in nature already. Science just discovers it and use it.

8. Jerry Paul

if science doesn’t make technology it certainly allows us to figure it out. Without science then technology would not exist in fact, not even in thoughts because once it is thought that is science.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. Of course I respect that that is your understanding. But I have a slightly different understanding. And that is the inspiration of man is divinely inspired. So it is not really science that develops anything. The developments come from some individual’s inspiration. That I think you can agree with. Every real advance in science, something completely new, it is the result of the inspiration of a particular person. You can take Nikola Telsa for example. He was able to conceive completely new things and introduce them and we are still using them today, AC power for example, invented by Nicola Tesla. But he was inspired, and that inspiration came from somewhere.

So I believe, actually I know, that there is divine inspiration. So as we have already established science is not making anything, they are discovering things, and properties of elements, metals, etc, that already exist. And some individual is divinely inspired at right time and he “discovers” something that leads to and an advance in science.

Then the technicians work on it and develop it and perfect it, etc.

So my information is this technology is not really new. The universe goes through cycles, it just so happens we are in the technological cycle, so this this technology is automatically coming out, by divine inspiration in the hearts and minds of some empowered scientists.

You may or may not believe in the divine part, but I think you can appreciate the inspiration part. Every true advance in science is a result of some individual’s inspiration.

9. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
Your 03-27-21 post posits that once the plane lifts off the earth, the earth no longer has an influence on its trajectory. You ask me to seriously consider this. I have but it reminds me of gravitational assists in speeding up or changing the trajectory of vehicles that we have sent to the other planets. When a vehicle or an object with mass passes close enough to a planetary body, that vehicle’s trajectory will curve towards that planet’s well of gravity, effectively changing its direction of travel. This can also be witnessed when we see star light bend around a large gravitational well in between the starlight and the observer. Einstein’s theory of relativity was confirmed some 100 years ago during an eclipse of the sun where this gravitational lensing was witness for the first time and many times since. So if a large enough mass can bend the direction of light then a planet surely can effect an aircraft up close. If this is not what is happening then why do aircraft keep their momentum as if this is what is happening? I think these effects are not intuitive and I think your thinking style is more intuitive than logical.

• Flat Earth Facts

I have never said gravity has no effect on the airplane or the other other objects in the sky, rather I have pointed out that gravity is simply a force which attracts objects to the center of mass of other objects. So earth is a very heavy object and gravity is simply a force that is attracting all the objects on the earth and the objects floating around in the sky to the center of the earth. That is all gravity can do. Sure if something flys past a planet then the gravity of the planet can change the trajectory of the object. But it is just pulling the object towards the center of the planet, that is all gravity can do.

So we are dealing with a completely different issue here. Gravity is certainly pulling the airplane down towards the center of the earth and this force has to be overcome by the lift and propulsion of the plane. That is gravity. We all agree.

However gravity only has the power to pull things towards the center of mass of the earth, the center of the earth. OK?

Gravity has no rotational component. Because the center of the earth remains in the the same position even as the earth rotates. OK?

So science has not given us any mechanism to explain how the objects in the sky, which are physically disconnected from the rotation of the earth are still being pulled around with the rotation of the earth. This is impossible. We don’t have any way of understand how this could happen. Science can not give us any explaination for this.

So that tends to suggest the other option, a stationary earth, is more likely than a rotating earth. Both are possibilities. We just have to work out what is actually happening.

10. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
Is it not reasonable to think as above, so below. Why should the earth be the center of the entire universe. Is this not an example of the very human quality of self centered narsasism. To think we are so special that everything revolves around us is the way human beings behave and we know that this is an all too human flaw. Even inside the system it appears that we spin. I do not think it is reasonable to believe otherwise. If you take away the human flaws would not an outside observer see that the earth spins and is not the center of anything except the human ego. Once we remove humans, it looks this way. We are guilty of selfish egoism. That is why the s scientific method is the best method to try and overcome these human shortcomings. At least this is they way I see it.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

Firstly yes, it is quite reasonable to propose “as above, so below,” that is a logical consistent theory. But it is not actual proof. It is a presumption based on a good logical premise. But there is still a chance that what is below, the earth, is something quite different from what is above, the planets. So yes, the proposition is reasonable, but there is still a chance it is not correct.

As far as deciding if the solar system is geocentric [rotating around the earth] or heliocentric [rotating around the sun], that is much more difficult. Because, as I have been trying to explain, we are inside this system, so all the movements, rotations, we observe happening, we have to chose a point of reference to measure them from. It means we have to consider some point stationary and calculate other movements in the system relative to that reference point. So it is equally valid to choose the sun as the stationary point and calculate everything based on that or we can choose the earth as the stationary point and calculate the other movements based on that.

Both systems work quite OK, heliocentric and geocentric, really it is just choosing the reference point and calculating on the basis of that. The only slight advantage that the heliocentric model has is they have developed a really neat way of explaining the retrograde motion of the planets, based on the sun being in the center, however this retrograde motion of the planets was also explained in older geocentric models.

So for us, inside the system, we have no way of knowing actually if the earth is in the center or if the sun is in the center. That is, more or less, an arbitrary choice.

I think you have uncovered the reason they have chosen to go with the heliocentric model. Their philosophy is to minimize the earth, to minimize the importance of humanity, so they can not have the earth in the center. So they have only chosen the heliocentric model on the basis of their philosophical beliefs. It is equally valid to choose the earth as the center, but for the reasons you outline, they don’t want to have the earth in the center. Even if the earth was in the center they would say it was not, because they don’t want earth to have any special significance. They could not bear earth to be in the center…

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
I guess one of the major reasons to place our star at the center is because it holds 99 % of the matter in our solar system so it would be illogical to believe the massive object revolves around the tiny object. You cannot give the two equal validity. The other star systems we see in our telescopes show us that stars are the main players in our universe, or at the top with things like black holes, star clusters, and galactic groups. I think you want the earth centered hypothesis and the sol centered theory to have equal plausibility but how can they. It does not fit with the rest of our observations. Plus the vast distances that are involved would mean that the matter on the outside of an earth centered universe would have to be traveling at speeds that don’t fit with any observations. I mean at millions of light years out they would have to traveling hundreds of times faster than the speed of light to orbit our earth in 24 hours. There are dozens of examples like this that favor the sol centered solar system. I can think of none that would favor the earth centered system other than the need of the human emotion to feel special. So to posit that they are on equal terms is, in my opinion, not only unlikly it is also impossible, if we are comparing it with all of our observations. I do not like to say anything is impossible but you really must draw the line some where. I think maybe it is rather hard for you personally to commit to one side or the other, not sure why, but as a logical, reasonable observer we must choose the most plausible over the most inplausible otherwise how can we ever blaze our way foward in our quest for factual knowledge over conjecture and undesidedness, if that is a word.
I admit it is not good policy to choose one idea over another without excruciating and solid evidence in its favor, even then I do not like to say anything is 100% sure but like I said before, 99.99% is as good as it gets.
I do have a challenge. Other than just stating that the earth centered universe is as plausible, and it would look the same if you flew out and started rotating with everything else, can you give me some logical reasons to believe it to be so. I have given you some like the travel speed discrepancies, the photos qnd videos from robotic vehicles we have sent into space, the larger mass over smaller mass idea, the other star system appear to be centered idea, the planetary retrograde example, and now we can see in our Hubble view, some planetary nebula that appear to be stars with proto planets circling their central star, all these little star systems that do not appear to have an entire universe rotating around them. Where do you yourself draw the line, if at all? And if the universe circled the earth, there would be a line traveling through the planet from top to bottom all the way to the end of the universe because the pole stars that travel in circles over both poles. I happen to live in the north eastern United States of America and up here the stars make a large circle around the pole star. If I lived on the equator, I would see the stars traveling from east to west in a line, and the same in the south, a circle. For us to be in the center of all this would be incredible. Do you not agree. Can you make a choice or are you going to continue to give validity to the two sides being of equal plausibility? If so please give me some examples of evidentiary value that I can wrap my mind around because to say, “we just cannot tell from within the system,” is not good enough. If it looks like, tastes like, smells like, clucks like, walks like, and tells you its a chicken, I’m going to guarantee its a chicken.
Those people who say things like, “we could be a simulation,” are simply failing to accept reality. Sure anything is possible, but what is actually plausible?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

Yes, of course, sun centered model has been thought out well and has got good justifications, on the basis of our current understanding of things. My point is it is all more-or-less a mental exercise. Things may not be actually as we imagine them to be. Things which are very basic and fundamental to our understanding may in reality be different from what we imagine them to be, thus changing everything. For example you mention the extraordinary distances to the stars, for example. The only reason we put the stars so extraordinarily far away is because they remain in the same positions and configurations in the sky even when the earth moves almost 2 million miles to the other side of the sun. So using this distance the earth moves around the sun you have got the base of a triangle 2 million miles across to measure parallax on the stars, but we don’t find any parallax to speak of in reality. So that is why we have to put the stars light years away. So you see everything is like this. All adjusted to make sense of our observations within the model we believe in.

In the future I will most likely present an alternative model that is based on different assumptions to the ones taken for granted by the believes in the globe earth model. So you can stay tuned for that.

If nothing else it is an interesting mental exercise. And it would certainly be a step forward for mankind and science if we could accept the possibility that some of our beliefs may not be 100% correct.

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
It has been a pleasure debating you these past weeks. Your keen on all the facts from all sides. You have a true scientific mind and I will give you credit where credit is due. Great job on mediating the outliers and some of the more strange minds out there. I once again tip my hat to you. Can you please tell me where you are from or at least what country so I can applaud the education system where you gained your logical skills? If not, its all good. I’m somewhere in idaho, USA but raised in California. Peace to you and your valiant efforts.

• Flat Earth Facts

My education comes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada! You will find them very interesting I suspect:

https://PrabhupadaBooks.com

I was born in Australia and have travelled quite a bit also. Spent a few years in California also around Topanga Canyon in LA.

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
Of course none of ours or anyone’s beliefs are 100% correct. It is not possible to be human and be 100% correct. I think all can agree to this.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. So in that case you realize that the “facts” presented to us by science may not be 100% correct. Which any real scientist will of course agree with, but that is not how they are presented to the general public. These ideas are presented as facts, not theories.

11. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
You said this site was for people who are willing to see an opposing or alternative to the globe model. Ive seen plenty of other ideas but not one single plausible, provable, repeatable example that has any evidentiary value proposed by any of your responders. All they keep showing is that the globe earth is the only answer to the question. Whats up with that?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

Yes. I agree with you. I do not find any serious competition to the globe model at all among the flat earthers. As I think you can understand if you read the articles on the site. You will find most of them prove the various points the flat earthers propose do not prove the earth is flat at all.

Yes. As far as I can see and perceive the globe earth model is really doing quite a satisfactory job of explaining our observations to quite a significant degree. However there are unexplained aspects of it, like how it could be possible that somehow with the rotation of the earth the whole atmosphere and everything in it is also rotating with it as if it were one contagious unit. This is a great mystery the globe earthers can not explain, and of course there is the mystery of in many cases being able to see too far in the distance objects that should be hidden by the curve of the globe, if the earth was a globe. However, the flat earthers are not able to put forward any working alternative to the globe earth model and apart from these two mysteries with the globe model, it is a very good model.

So yes, at the time being, if I had to make a decision, I would have to say, on the basis of what we can observe and test, the proposal that the earth is a spinning globe is a very reasonable one and would seem to have a good chance of being true whereas the proposition put forward by the flat earthers is obviously totally false and has no possibility whatsoever of being true, at least as they present it. And you can see so many aspects of why the arguments put forward by the flat earth people are false on this website.

Still we will continue with this investigation and see where it leads. I am not satisfied with the flat earth presentation of course, but I am also not completely satisfied with the globe earth model, and it is my suspicion that we do not fully understand the actual situation and I would not be at all surprised if the reality is considerably different from what we imagine it to be.

• Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
Thank you, that was the response I was expecting seeing as it is obvious that you have the capacity to see logic and a great mind for factual observations. Thanks for that, my work here is done. Your a great mediator by the way. I tip my hat to you. Great job.

12. Jerry Paul

Flat Earth Facts,
I must apologize to those that I may have offended in my responses. Not my intention. Only that they may be better educated to the Facts of this exsistance.

13. zenpriest

I can understand the walking on an aeroplane example, or on a bus, although I have some doubts as we can still perceive motion. I wonder what a toy helicopter would do, presumably it would be free to fly around the interior of an aeroplane and does not feel the forces of the aeroplane’s motion?
However. If this idea is true, then it is only true if the interior ‘atmosphere’ is contained. The little toy helicopter would not fly easily anywhere within the plane if there was a huge hole in the side.
So given that containment is necessary, what contains the Earth?
I have always thought there would have to be a barrier separating Earth and its atmosphere, and space. Because you could not just have the atmosphere being subject to the Earth’s forces (‘gravity’ and rotation), and then space, with nothing in between. One could not simply merge into the other. We accept the Earth is pulling everything towards it, but only to a point because after that point is space. So what is the ‘point’? Don’t say the air simply gradually thins and then there’s space, that cannot explain it. A greater force will always win, so this would be Earth or space. So like an argon-filled double glazed window is sealed to prevent argon escaping to the atmosphere, the Earth must be sealed if we accept the idea it is rotating and so is everything else within its atmosphere.
And so then the idea that humans could go into space, breaking through this tremendous barrier capable of separating the Earth and its atmosphere from space… is laughable.

• Flat Earth Facts

The official explanation is the atmosphere is held to the earth by magic gravity and spins with the earth. And there is no containment. It gets thinner and thinner as you go up until the point when it gradually fades into the vacuum. So there is no ‘edge’, just gradually fades into the vacuum…

This is treated by scientists like the “word of God” and questioning it is not permitted. Even though, really, it is not logical, and as you point out, does not make any sense at all.

This gravity is one of the great failings of the globe earth model. They have no explanation as to how the gravity could possible grab hold of the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere, like the airplanes, birds, clouds, etc, and spin it in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth… Gravity is only able to pull things towards the center of the earth. There is no spinning component to gravity because as the earth spins the center of the earth remains in the same place… So gravity has not got any power to grab the atmosphere and pull it around with the spinning earth…

These are the types of questions you are not supposed to ask, the questions science can not answer, but they won’t admit they don’t know, they can’t answer, they will change the subject and yell and scream and have a tantrum if you push the point…

• MAC

Yes Flat Earth Facts it’s very frustrating talking to smart people that have been brainwashed with this doctrine. I just wish they would think for themselves, not have science be their go to for all knowledge. Not when most of science is run by the elites for their own lies. When your aware of all the lies, the truth is so obvious.
Blessings Brother

• hschuring

The flimsy thin layer of the atmosphere has mass, so it is attracted by gravity. And also the air mass has inertia. And there is friction between the surface and the lower bound of the atmosphere and between adjacent layers of the atmosphere. Those three things keep the atmosphere rotating, clung to the massive Earth. Then why don’t all air molecules fall to the surface? Because their temperature movement keeps them apart (in the gaseous state). There is no point beyond which the gravitational force of the Earth stops and “outer” space begins. The gravitational force (per unit mass) decreases with the inverse square of the distance (with respect to the center of mass) For instance, at the distance of the moon it has become about 3,500 x as weak compared with its strenght at the Earth’s surface, but still exactly enough to deliver the centripetal force needed to keep the Moon in its orbit with this orbital velocity.
Neither is there a sharp boundary beyond which there is no atmosphere. The density (and pressure) decreases exponentially with altitude. It halves about every 5 km. This follows from teh laws of physics and is confirmed by measurements. Rather arbitrarily we talk about “outer space” beyond 100 km, but at that altitude there is still some air left, with a density of about one millionth of the density at sea level. And even the ISS at an altitude of 420 km still experiences a tiny bit of friction and has to reboost roughly every month a little bit in order to regain altitude. I don’t see what “greater force” space could exert on anything. Or perhaps you think that the vacuüm sucks the molecules up, which it doesn’t. Every single molecule is bound to the Earth by its own tiny gravitational force and will fall down, until it collides with another molecule . Only when its temperature velocity would exceed the escape velocity it could escape, but the typical molecular speed is much smaller than that.

• Flat Earth Facts

Its a theory of course. I can give you that. But it is not fact. Not for sure. It is a story you are telling to try and make sense of it. But it makes no sense.

All the words you are pouring out are just a feeble attempt to cover over the fact that science can not explain how it could be possible that the spinning earth can spin the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere as if it were part of the same physical system. You claim the rotation of the earth is imparted into the atmosphere by friction. Which is rubbish. There is no friction. It’s completely rubbish. Insane. Almost as crazy as a flat earther.

There is no explanation for this. All you can do is write volumes of stuff to try and avoid facing the facts.

And the facts are, if your spinning globe model is correct, then you have to provide the explanation for the mechanism which joins the atmosphere and the earth and the butterflies and the airplanes and the clouds and the wind, and everything else in the atmosphere into one unit which is absolutely locked to the rotation of the earth.

And there is no such force, there is no such system.

It is a mystery.

The system acts as if the earth was stationary. We can not detect any rotation of the earth by leaving the earth, because we presume when we leave the earth we are still locked into the same frame of reference as the earth, still spinning with the earth, therefore we can not detect the spin of the earth.

But we can not explain what is the force that locks us to the rotation of the earth and pulls us around in the sky, totally disconnected from the earth, but still locked to the rotation of the earth?

You can not explain this. Science can not explain this. In this regard the system behaves as if the earth was stationary.

There is no evidence the earth is rotating.

For the earth to be rotating you have to explain the force that is merging the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere into the same rigid connected frame of reference so it can all move together as a unit.

But you can not explain any such force. Therefore, this part at least, of the globe earth model, is incorrect.

14. zenpriest

Thanks for responding.
Yes, this is what happens when you start asking the difficult questions. I was turned off science very early at school because of this very thing. I concluded it was full of shit and did barely any work. It’s a shame because i was a smart kid and I could have got too grades had I been like most other kids, ie didn’t question too much, accepted what I was being told. But I’m such a non conformist, i rejected it outright – what can I do, its who I am.
I knew then that science shouldn’t be getting cross with me for asking awkward questions. Science should be excited by my questions. Wow, someone’s asking valid questions against our hypothesis!!
But no, it’s “someone is daring to question our dogma, he must be punished”.
I have carried this scepticism throughout my life and although I’m not outwardly successful, I have to say it has served me well.
Anyway enough of my life story..
I do wish a scientific mind would address some of these burning questions. But as a number of celebrated physicists have said, the more you study science the more you believe in God. Of course the leading scientists (ie those in the public eye) today will never admit this, because the ruling class is pushing an anti God narrative.
I find globe vs flat earth discussion to be closely related to atheist vs theist.