# Can’t detect rotation of earth proves flat earth

Our inability to detect or measure in any way the spinning of the earth up to 1000 miles per hour in a easterly direction is one of the most quoted proofs given by the flat earthers. They assert:

• Vertically fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west, but they don’t, they come straight down
• Helicopters and hot air balloons should be able to simply hover and wait for their destinations to appear underneath them as the earth spins
• The spin of the earth should significantly change the flight times of eastern and western flights but in reality there is little difference in the flight times.
• and many other good points.

The answer to these questions from the perspective of the globe earthers is as the earth spins gravity pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere including the cannon balls, the butterflys, hot air balloons and helicopters, so everything rotates at the same speed as the earth. Because everything is then moving at the same 1,000 miles per hour it gives the illusion that there is no movement.

It is truly a mystery how gravity could cause the earth and the atmosphere and everything in it to spin at up to one thousand miles per hour and hold things so tightly, keeping all the water in the ocean firmly stuck to the the earth, yet still allow a butterfly to flap its wings and go effortlessly in any direction it chooses in the sky.

The conclusion is many valid points are raised which do not have satisfactory explanations from the globe earth people. Considering these and many other points raised by the flat earthers one has to seriously question the validity of the globe earth model which ascribes to the earth so many simultaneous motions in different directions that no one has every been able to feel, measure or prove. Also one has to marvel at the magic powers the globe earthers ascribe to  gravity which makes everything possible in their world.

# Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

• 20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west.
• 21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!
• 22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.
• 24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer.
• 25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind!
• 26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation.
• 27) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, landing airplanes on such fast-moving runways which face all manner of directions North, South, East, West and otherwise would be practically impossible, yet in reality such fictional concerns are completely negligible.
• 28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.
• 29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone,
• 30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind-
• 31) …If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way…
• 97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.
• 128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.
• 130) From “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.”
• 129) To quote William Carpenter, “Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair’s-breadth, – if the Earth on which they fix them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that ‘six thousand million million million tons’ is ‘rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever’ with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a ‘very slow coach,’ with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair’s-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it – and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window – all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all and that the Earth is not a globe.”
• 185) We are told that the Earth and atmosphere spin together at such a perfect uniform velocity that no one in history has ever seen, heard, felt or measured the supposed 1000mph movement. This is then often compared to traveling in a car at uniform velocity, where we only feel the movement during acceleration or deceleration. In reality, however, even with eyes closed, windows up, over smooth tar in a luxury car at a mere uniform 50mph, the movement absolutely can be felt! At 20 times this speed, Earth’s imaginary 1000mph spin would most certainly be noticeable, felt, seen and heard by all.
• 186) People sensitive to motion sickness feel distinct unease and physical discomfort from motion as slight as an elevator or a train ride. This means that the 1000mph alleged uniform spin of the Earth has no effect on such people, but add an extra 50mph uniform velocity of a car and their stomach starts turning knots. The idea that motion sickness is nowhere apparent in anyone at 1000mph, but suddenly comes about at 1050mph is ridiculous and proves the Earth is not in motion whatsoever.

## 51 Replies to “Can’t detect rotation of earth proves flat earth”

1. Stone Forest

‘The conclusion is many valid points are raised which do not have satisfactory explanations from the globe earth people.’

Ergo, why should they be believed?

This does not prove that the Earth is flat, but it does demand valid evidence from those who claim ‘the truth’.

• John

Examples are not good (air plane air balloons, etc landing farther away etc.
All these actions are taking place “with-in” the earth’s atmosphere, so they will not be affected by rotation speeds.

• On the Level

You’re backwards. Earth’s rotation must affect atmospheric motion. According to the absurd globe model, if a supersonic jet flying from around the north pole to the equator the relative atmospheric wind speed should jettison from north pole wind velocities to something like 24,000 mph east to west storm wind velocities by the time the craft reaches the equator. This must happen simply to keep the air mass at the same relative velocity to the earth’s surface. Of course any aircraft confronting such velocity differentials would need to compensate for it. The fact that no one does proves the earth does not rotate.
Get off the ball, it will only give you headaches.
Have a great day!

• Flat Earth Facts

Of course globe idea is everything is moving, earth and atmosphere together. So if everything is moving together and you are inside that system then everything appears stationary and any motion within the system is independent of the movement of the whole system.

If you are inside an airplane travelling at 1000 KM/hour, because plane and everything in the plane is moving at 1000 KM/Hour within the plane there is no sense of movement at all. You can walk in any direction within the plane with no effect from the movement of the plane. Not that when you move towards the front of the plane you go fast and when you walk to the back of the plane you go very slow. No. No. No.

Because the whole system, the whole plane is moving at a constant velocity, no matter how fast that is, inside the plane everything is also moving at that same velocity so all the movements within the plane are not at all effected by the velocity of the plane.

So globe earthers take the earth and the atmosphere as one system. Everything moving together. So within a moving system the movement of the system is irrelevant to the movements within the system…

Flat earthers seem unable to comprehend this…

• On the level

Once aloft an airplane can no longer rationally be lazily lumped as part of the supposed globe system. Air moves quite independently of the surface. Jet streams of several hundred miles per hour illustrates my point. In any case, no reason has been presented as to why the plane pilot would not notice increasing airflow directionally altering the plane’s path sideways over time. The supposed unity of air and surface motion arising merely from gravity is mere speculative dreaming.

• Flat Earth Facts

This is not a very good argument. You know if we are going to consider the globe model we have to accept the presumption that it is a unit and everything is moving together so your plane is within that ‘frame of reference’ so movement of the frame of reference becomes irrelevant. I know there seems to be holes in this but it is a reasonable story. So rather than trying to pick holes in the reasonable globe earth story, which achieves nothing, try to develop a reasonable model, story, as to how the earth could be flat and at the same time explain what we observe happening around us.

I agree with you actually that everything we experience indicates that the earth is stationary. And this point that you are bringing up points to the earth being stationary. Because we can not find any evidence at all of the earth moving. In fact the earth is given as the example of stability. So we have no reason at all to believe the earth is moving. And we can not measure any movement. So this point as to how the atmosphere could be so connected to the earth that it spins at exactly the same speed around the earth. It is sort of hard to believe. But that is the globe earth model story and flat earthers don’t have a better story. So people will accept the most believable story. And globe earth, that is a fairly believable story, but flat earthers, they don’t even have an agreed story, and none of their stories explain our observations satisfactorily at all…

• Kelly

Then why do they say we have the Coriolis effect lol. Oh wait we don’t because they lied about that too

• Flat Earth Facts

There is a coriolis effect, and there is Faulcots Pendulum also. These are real things. There is a rotational force acting. But it could be the earth rotating or it could be the heavenly bodies rotating around the earth. In either case we would experience the rotational force.

We know, for example, that the moon is causing the ocean to move, so if the moon can move the ocean, if all the heavenly bodies are rotating together above the earth, they can create the corilis effect and move Faulcots Pendulum.

So there are two possibilities. A rotating earth or a rotating field of luminaries around the earth. We can’t know what is the real situation from earth. All we can say is that we observe a relitave rotation. And it depends on where we put our point of reference, and we can calculate either way. Both theories (rotating earth or rotating field of luminaries above the earth) are equally valid.

• bobe

Secondary education seems to be left on the Enterprise, it doesn’t seem to apply to “planet” earth!
It really doesn’t matter what the container is, whether a starship or a ball inside a magically contained atmosphere, velocity has a direction component and ANY change in direction equals acceleration.
Taking a curve in your vehicle can cause your coffee to spill.
Check the ‘science’: there is motion. Not just spin, either. All the motion attributed to our globe earth model is velocity. Guess what? Velocity = speed + direction. Constantly changing direction (spinning, rotating etc.). Acceleration. Do you feel it? You do in a car. Even the slightest curve.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Bobe

Yes. This is a very difficult problem for the rotating globe people. If we were on a rotating globe, that is not a steady movement without acceleration in one direction, no, the rotational force would certainly create forces that we could easily measure. If not “feel”. We could get used to the movement, like you get used to the movement of a boat on the water after you have been in it for a while. So we may have become accustomed to the forces on us due the rotating earth, but we should be able to measure these forces…

But that is not possible. The earth appears stationary to us, both from our sense perception and from the measurements of our scientific instruments.

There is a rotation, however, it does not seem it is the earth rotating, rather it seems to us, intuitively, that the sky is rotating around the earth. That is what has always been understood except for the past few hundred years. And there is a good chance science is mistaken and the earth is stationary and the luminaries in the sky are rotating around us.

2. John

I know someone here in the UK who got arrested for repeatedly firing canon balls in four cardinal directions; North, South, East and West. The Police claimed illegal possession of a firearm, illegal possession of explosives, Terrorist activities and Damage to property as reasons for the arrest. We, however know the real reasons were to stop my friend’s experiments so they could not disprove the spinning globe theory. They got a very light sentence, community service, parole and (rather unfairly), compulsory psychiactric counselling. The “ornamental” cannon, powder and remaining balls, wadding, fuses etc were all confiscated by the Police. My friend never did find where the cannon balls ended up.

Proof, if any were needed in flat earth theory!

3. Eli

Gravity is pulling everything down onto the (round) earth, and there is nothing in space above the atmosphere, right? And the atmosphere goes all the way around the earth. So there is friction and inertia keeping the atmosphere And people and every thing on the planet. Why do you think that the moon doesn’t just call down and crash into the earth? Because there is no force or friction acting on the moon. Relative to the earth, the atmosphere is not moving fast enough to be in orbit. The atmosphere stays on the ground because of the exact opposite reason of why the moon is not crashed into earth. As to why people get motion sickness, when your stationary you have gravity acting on you right then. A gravity of around one G. When you are driving you have gravity more gravity acting on you in more than one was.

• Jbud

The moon is considered to be ‘in’ earths atmosphere, so why is it not effected? Also, how do you create a pressure system? I assume you know we live in one? Without a container how is this possible?

• hschuring

The atmosphere exponentially decreases in density. so it is hard to define a boundary, almost 80% is in the lower 6 mi, and past 60 mi the density has dropped to as good as 0. The moon is about 240,000 mi away, so no influence possible. The pressure system is simply caused by the gravitational pull. Because of that, air also has some weight. So at the surface the pressure is highest (the most air above you) and with increasing height the pressure decreases again exponentially. You might think that air molecules could escape into outer space vacuüm, but that would mean that their velocity would exceed the escape velocity (the minimum velocity to overcome the gravitational pull), but it doesnt. The average molecular velocity is far smaller than that.

• Elijah

Gravity is holding down on the atmosphere. The boundary between atmosphere and space is really not there. The pressure of the atmosphere does go down really quickly as you go higher. When you reach the moon, the atmosphere is basically nonexistent, meaning there is not enough mass of the atmosphere to be acting on the moon.

4. Dan Riley

Drop a fork on an airplane, does it fly backwards at 500mph?

• Mark Roy

Because the fork is travelling at the same speed as the aeroplane, obviously.

When you drop your Big Mac while driving along in your car at 55 mph, does it fly backwards at 55mph? Or does it fall straight down in your lap?

5. Steve Price

So I have a question, if the earth is flat then wouldnt we assume that people have gone missing by falling off the edge of the earth? We have ships and planes that travel all over the world every day and never have we had any instances where people have fallen off the planet? or were reported to have fallen off the planet. I understand there will be a default ‘conspiracy theory’ around this, but please elaborate as to why would this be the case where an agency wants us to believe the is earth is flat and not round? What is to be gained by keeping this a secret?

6. Jerry Paul

Imagine for a moment that you are on a merry go round 50 feet in diameter. Consider this to be the earth. The earth makes one rotation in 24 hours at 1000 mph. Now if you sat on the 50 feet diameter merry go round and make one rotation in 24 hours, you could not detect any movment what so ever, at this speed the merry go round would seeming be motionless to our limited senses. Now think deeply about this and reason the only possible conclusion, the comparison and logic are sound. We all need to think more deeply about these kinds of ideas and don’t just believe the first conclusion we come to. Keep going until you exhaust all the possibilities in your hypothesis before you accept your beliefs as fact, only then can you call your belief a theory.

7. Tracy Lee

A simple test is to drive your car at 70 mph on a straight level road like the interstate with a 70mph speed limit and have your passenger drop a penny. The penny will drop straight down, it won’t fly to the back seat. Same law of physics for a butterfly on a windless day. Everything in the atmosphere is moving with the spin of the earth.

• bobe

Physics-ly speaking, your example is not at all equal to travel on the surface of a spinning ball. All the motion that “science” attributes to its heliocentric model puts all objects on this ‘ball’ subject to an incredible diversity of changing velocities. Even ignoring all but the alleged rotation of the ball itself, the forces on an independently moving object/person, are only constant if the movement is perpendicular to its axis. This is, physics-ly speaking, true on a spinning ball of any size.
All the friction you might throw into this model doesn’t change the force, only the resistance to that force. Friction is seldom constant, its nature is directly contrary.

• bobe

I live at 7000 ft above sea level. When I have traveled from home to an area at sea level, I am readily effected both ways. When you change your environment, your body is aware of many things you seldom think about.
Think about a quick trip to the North Pole from the equator. Living on the globe, can you imagine your body’s adjustment from a 1000 mph normal to a +/- 4 mph normal?
Many people live above the arctic circle an have vactioned in the tropics. Think about it.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes Bobe. Would be very difficult to get used to that. Would be a very different feeling at the equator and at the poles. Another very strong indication that the earth is not moving in the way the globe earth people propose.

8. hschuring

As Jerry Paul pointed out already, the rotation of the earth is very slow, only one revolution in 24 hours. On the other hand the earth is very big. The atmosphere is only a very thin layer, 80% of the air within the lower 6 miles , Compare with a radius of almost 4000 miles. Every gram of that atmosphere also feels its own gravitational pull. So it should not be hard to imagine how that thin layer will move along with that slowly rotating giant ball. Of course the air is still a gas, so f.i. temperature differences will cause pressure differences which in turn will cause internal movements (winds) on top of the general movement.

• Flat Earth Facts

It is very hard to imagine. How the atmosphere could possibly move as if physically connected to to the earth, spinning in the exact same frame of reference as the the earth. There is no explanation for this. It is a mystery. You say “it is not hard to imagine” how this happens. But so far science has not been able to imagine an explanation for it.

Remember gravitation is just a force pulling things towards the center of gravity of a heaver object. There is no more to it than this. And that heavy object is the earth and the earth rotating does not cause and difference to its center of gravity. So the rotation of the earth can not impart any rotation on the particles that make up the atmosphere. All it can do is pull them down to the center of the earth.

So you are imagining the atmosphere will move with the earth. But there is no scientific basis for your imagination. No theory even to explain how this could happen.

9. hschuring

point 20) up to 28) are all flawed because they either ignore the fact that the thin layer of atmosphere is moving WITH the earth or they don’t understand the concept of inertia or both.
“• 29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone”: it can be seen in the daily motion of all celestial objects. I am curious how one should be able to hear or feel this motion. Like in a commercial airplane, when you don’t look out of the window, you don’t notice the speed at all, except for disturbances. The aerth’s movement has no such disturbances. The rotation can be demonstrated with ring laser gyroscopes, foucaults pendulum and expresses itselve in large scale coriolis patters in atmospheric and oceanic currents (no bath tubs or toilets — those are to small to show the effect). Also astronomers who do spectroscopic analyses measure diurnal and annual doppler shift for which they standardly have to correct.
30) I once made a time lapse of the sky in which the lower clouds moved in a different direction as the higher cirrus clouds. Explanation is simple: different layers of the atmosphere can move with respect to each other as every convection circle clearly shows. Really can’t see what this has to do with the shape of the earth.
31) same fallacy as 21) to 28)
97) All those numbers must be seen in the context of the gigantic astronomical distance scales. 1000mph, but it still takes (almost) 24 h to make one revolution. 67,000 mph, but it still takes 365 days to complete one orbit. 500,000mph but it still takes the sun 250 million years to complete one orbit around the center of our galaxy. It is kind of ridiculous to say that no one has measured these velocities, for we know of them BECAUSE we measured them! In a human lifetime and / or with the naked eye, you are not supposed to see the extremely slow displacements of the stars, again because of the gigantic distance scales, but they are there and measurable with the proper instruments (telescopes, photography, spectroscopy). The daily and annual motion can be seen in the daily motion of the celestial objects and the annual motion of the sun and the planets. And again, we don’t feel constant motions, only disturbances, like — again — in a commercial airplane.
128) There is no reason why ancient sundials should no longer give the correct solar time. They BY DEFINITION do. Some have some sort of equatorial mount, depending on your latitude, but the tilt of the earth’s axis only changes slightly on a time scale of teh order of 40,000 years, and no sundial we know of is older than a few millenia.
130) This one has two parts. The first experiment will never work, for the simple reason, that in practice (1)the tubes cannot be mounted perfectly parallel in the way described, and (2)the two observers will have a fluctuating reaction/decision time for banging on the tube. The second part puzzles me. If today a certain star passes at a certain time through the meridian, then 6 moths later it will be on the opposite side , it can’t possibly pass at the same time of the day through the meridian again.
129) Earth’s movements are decribed as wildly, uncontrolled and erratic (“rolling, surging, flying, darting “) but they are the complete opposite, they are slow, smooth and predictable. The only two movements astronomers need to take into account are the daily motion, immediately apparent in the 15°/hour rotation of the sky, and the annual movement, which shows itself in a day to day shift of the apparent stars position of less than 1° per day. The sun’s own intragalactical movement is for most observations irrelevant, because of the astronomical distance scales (starting with a few lightyears for the most nearby stars), the movement of the galaxy can’t be seen with respect to our surrounding stars, because they all are a small part of that same galaxy, and the movement of the earths axis (tilt and precession) take place on time scales of several tenthousand years. It is not a shame if you can’t get your head immediately around those large numbers, but just keep trying, and don’t say: “I can’t imagine/understand it so it must be false”.
185) Again: we can’t feel the car’s (airplane’s, train’s) constant movement, we can only feel disturbances.
186) Motion sickness can be caused by either (1) your equilibrium organ tells you that you are stable, but your eyes tell you that you are moving (or the other way around), or (2) you are sensitive for accelerating, or both. Neither one can be the case with the extremely slowly rotating earth.

• Flat Earth Facts

All very good. But there is nothing in science to explain how the atmosphere and everything within it, up to a certain, undefined point, rotates in absolute synchronization with the earth as a unit, while allowing the winds, etc, to blow in different directions, while the whole system rotates, completely and exactly locked to the rotation of the earth.

This point is totally ignored by science because they can not explain it. There is no force even proposed to explain this mystical happening.

It is not what we would expect to happen. There is no known force that can, for example, rotate the airplane in the sky, pulling it around with the rotation of the earth, thus keeping the plane and the earth locked in the same frame of reference even though the plane and the earth have no physical contact.

Otherwise, everything you are explaining is totally correct.

You presume the atmosphere and the earth are locked in the same frame of reference, as the airplane and the passengers within it are locked in the same frame of reference, therefore the movement of the airplane becomes totally irrelevant to the movement of the passengers inside the plane.

So your points are all good and valid, however, there is no logical or scientific explanation as to what is the force that locks the atmosphere, the airplanes, the butterflies, the birds, etc, all in the same frame of reference of the spinning earth?

It is OK to say that when the plane, the bird, the butterfly, etc, leaves the earth, it is spinning with the same direction and speed as the spin of the earth. However, once in the sky, it is disconnected from the spin of the earth. It will continue, of course, spinning in the same direction and speed of the earth, but it can only have one speed and direction, and there is wind blowing in a different direction to the spin of the earth, so it will not continue spinning in synchronization with the earth.

There has to be some force pulling the whole system around in synchronization with the spin of the earth.

Like if you are on a roundabout. It is spinning, pulling all the people on the roundabout around. And they can move about on the roundabout, but they are all locked into the spinning frame of reference because they are joined to the roundabout. But if they are disconnected from the roundabout, lifted up a few inches so as to be no longer physically connected to the roundabout, what is going to happen to them? They will fly out in a straight line off the roundabout. Because they are no longer physically connected to the same frame of reference as the roundabout. It is that physical connection with the roundabout that is pulling them around in a circle, without that physical connection, they will fly straight out over the edge of the roundabout…

So this is the problem with all your points. You can not establish a physical connection between the atmosphere and everything in it and the rotating earth. And without that physical connection, they can not share a common frame of reference, and all your points become invalid.

• Mark Roy

Look up the coriolis force and weather and you will see how pretty much every single one of your points is wrong . The coriolis force is what causes water in a bucket to swirl around when you swing it in a circle.

• Flat Earth Facts

No one is arguing that there is no rotation in the system. There is obviously rotation. And yes, Coriolis force is defined as being something caused by the rotation in the system.

The point is, from our position on earth, we can certainly perceive that there is rotation. But we are inside the system, so all we can do is measure relative rotation. So we have to take a point of reference and assume that point is stationary and measure the rotation according to that. So the globe earth model proposes that it is the earth that is rotating within a relatively fixed field of stars with planets and the sun and moon moving around in that fixed starfield. So that is one possibility of course. But the other, equally valid, possibility is that the earth is fixed and the system of stars and planets is rotating around the earth.

So in both cases there is a rotational force, a Coriolis force, if you like to call it that, and in both cases it will be identical.

You have to understand that, from within the system, although we can detect relative rotation, there is no way we can know if it is the earth that is rotating or if it is the system rotating around the earth, because the result of both is identical.

So the point is the existence of the Coriolis force does not prove the earth is rotating. The earth may well be stationary and the rotation may be in the system rotating around the earth, there is no way we can tell the difference, our observed Coriolis force it identical in both cases.

So the point is we know there is rotation, but we do not know that it is the earth that is rotating, and, from within the system, we can not know. A rotating earth is only one possibility, there is at least another equally valid possibility.

10. I see evil

at sea ships go ” Over the horizon ” as they say yet you can use binoculars and telescopes to see the ships are still perfectly level in sight. this is known by all artists as the vanishing point .. the point your eyes and even when magnified fail. nothing globe about it. and second has anyone rode the gravitron at the fair spinning causes gravity or false gravity so you can walk on the walls. this spinning causes energy that pushes you out …. not in. thus a spinning earth would simply sling everything and everyone out to space…. not stick us to the surface as THEY want us to believe. atmosphere or not we would all be buck shot on the earthy go round. I see the so call scientists working for the dollar and bowing to satan. hence why they are trying to make us believe the earth is round and spinning out in nothingness. on a off note … notice how all the evil in the world is building ever so rapidly? everything that is not of God is good and everything that is of God … well lets skip that and get back to the Kardashians and the new iphone… another selfie 0_o

11. James

I’ve been up 42,000 ft & 0 ‘curvature’ as they claim.

Additionally, if ‘Earth’s atmosphere rotates with Earth’ you have an interesting set of problems.

Problem #1: Upper atmosphere must rotate faster than lower to keep apparent speed the same.

Problem #2: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless reacted upon by outside force. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest also, unless reacted upon. Air is, by definition of what it is, self braking due to friction with itself. Even if it were possible to ‘rotate the atmosphere nearly 1,100 mph’ it would still require constant ‘push’ by something as friction with itself would negate motion the same as happens with winds across the surface of Earth. Turn a fan on, then back off. ‘Breeze’ doesn’t travel forever. It halts (almost instantly) due to friction with itself.

Problem #3: If atmosphere ‘rotates with Earth’ it has to have a reason/cause. What is ‘rotating’ it at that speed? Can’t be trees. Trees snap apart during hurricanes in 90 mph breezes & below. It defies physics they could possibly last at 1,100 mph breezily brushing things up to speed without snapping off & wiping everything from the surface of the Earth.

Problem #4: Imagine if it were possible a jet that normally travels 550 mph could hover in space above the rotating 1,100 mph ball Earth. On Flat Earth, this would not be a problem. The plane could normally descend & go where-ever it chose without a problem. A ‘rotating ball’ is a problem. What happens if plane slowly descends till it touches on atmosphere of rotating ball with atmosphere going at least that fast, but even faster for upper region of atmosphere (since outer layers draw a bigger circle & thus have to rotate even faster to ‘keep up’ with lower levels that draw a smaller circle, much like being in the center of a playground push & spin vs outer edge holding on with all your might as someone runs around speeding it up) but in the same direction as the ‘rotating ball’ as people like to call it. What would be the effect of having an 1100 mph tailwind behind jet? What’s 550 mph + 1,100 mph? 1,650 mph? Flight = 1/3 the normal time. Now, imagine what happens if descending plane touches down facing direction opposing the alleged ‘spin of the Earth’ so that it’s facing directly opposite this non-existent ‘spin.’ What’s the effect of an 1100 mph headwind on a plane that only goes 550 mph? Subtract 550 mph from plane speed = plane travels in reverse 550 mph, never reaching intended destination, except in reverse? This obviously never ever happens & in it’s inevitable that the while there are head or tail winds of +/- 30 to 50 mph, 1,100 mph is definitively never encountered. At all. This completely decimates & obliterates the dead ‘globe ball’ logic.

Problem #5: If you can even still find it now, Obama’s 2015 ‘Blue marble photo from NASA!’ tweet contains a doctored image. Not photo. You can tell it’s doctored/CGI because rotating the image upside down reveals to the right & near the center SEX written in the clouds.

Problem #6: NASA’s ‘Curve calculator’ shows what the curve should be (if the Earth was a ‘globe’ supposedly) but the trouble is, it doesn’t actually work because the Earth is flat. The actual formula is supposed to be 8 inches per mile squared. Which means for mile #1 it is 1 x 1 x 8 inches or 8 inches. Mile #2 is 2 x 2 x 8 or 32 inches. Mile #3 is 3 x 3 x 8 or 72 inches. You can see the problem by the time you get to 25 miles out or 25 x 25 x 8 inches divided by 12 for # feet ‘curvature’ that’s alleged to, but does not exist when you pull things in from dozens of miles away because there’s no curvature.

Problem #7: Navy has to angle their 100+ mile rail-gun barrel at slight curvature upwards so it can hit targets 100+ miles away traveling at speeds of 5,600 mph. This incline is needed, because the Earth is not ‘curved’ & this they have to incline the shot. If the Earth really were ‘curved’ then by mile 100, NASA’s ‘curvature formula’ shows there should be some over a mile of ‘curvature’ which would make inclining a 100 mile shot seem to be unnecessary as it’s ‘already traveling around the curve’ but since it is not…

Problem #8: Sundials work because the light source is traveling in a long arc around the Earth exactly as the Bible records when it details ‘The sun travels in a circuit’ & it also details the day the sun & moon both stood still. If we were on a ‘rotating ball’ the light would have to show sun up/noon/down. Sundials would not work. But, they do. Because the sun is moving in an arc. When you position the setting or rising sun against a stationary building & use dark protective lenses to filter the light, you can track the light moving in an arc. Not a straight line as on a ‘rotating ball.’

Problem #9: Look at any clip of ‘rockets with cameras attached’ & you will see as they rise to great heights, it is almost inevitable the cam will start to flip flop/sway. A camera that is only reporting what it sees will never constantly ‘alter the shape of the Earth’ but simply record the Earth’s location is changing relative to the camera’s flips. This is not what happens. Because they’re using ‘shape changer’ Fish eye or wide-angle lenses, the ‘shape’ of the Earth flip flops with the camera going from ‘globe ball’ to ‘inverted curve’ similar to the waves of the ocean.

Problem #10: Remember they showed pictures of relatively low height planes in ‘history books’ in school that pretended to ‘show the curve’ by using fisheye lenses? Now, no matter how high people go ‘You just didn’t go high enough!’ Now, even ‘astrophysicist’ & ‘Flat Earth debunker’ Neil DeGrasse Tyson stated the Baumgartner 128,000 ft jump ‘Is not high enough to see the curve! People will say to you it’s curved! No! From that height, you’re 2 millimeters above the ball! 2 millimeters! You will NOT see the curve from 2 millimeters high! They use what’s called a wide angle lens to produce the images & say it’s curved, but I tell you it’s not. It’s FLAT from up there! You have to go higher!’ Oh, sure… So, the prior images pretending you can ‘see the curve’ from jets & planes at 20,000 ft, 40,000 ft, 60,000 ft are now 100% proven frauds?

Don’t let them fool you any longer.
Break free of their programming.

Thinking is magnificent!

• ON THE LEVEL

Great post.

“Remember they showed pictures of relatively low height planes in ‘history books’ in school that pretended to ‘show the curve’ by using fisheye lenses? Now, no matter how high people go ‘You just didn’t go high enough!’ ”

Back in the 1970’s and beyond the scam included the claim they developed amazing satellites that could read the license plate off of your car. Hilarious. Satellites in stable geosynchronous orbits are supposedly from 20-35k miles away and satellites in low earth orbit supposedly between 100-1200km high must travel at extreme velocities. The ISS supposedly travels over 17k miles per hour! It’s pure fiction of course and Google maps has a fleet of air-planes quite capable of taking photos and mapping Earth’s surface. Of course, if deceptive NASA really had satellite cameras capable of reading your license plate from space why can’t we get a high resolution detail image of the supposed ISS or better labeled IFS ( International Fake Station ) from the ground?

Thanks.

• Jerry paul

Please, you discard millions of data points that show round earth and you have 10 seemingly solid points you think show flat earth. You seriously are not able to see how your thinking is fundamentally flawed. You are not smarter than a fifth grader.

• Flat Earth Facts

I agree Jerry, that there is a very good, logical scientific predictive model constructed on the presumption of a spinning ball globe earth. There are not, however, “millions of data points to show a round earth.” From our position we are not actually able to tell exactly what shape the earth is. All we can do is speculate on it. Because we are stuck on it and there is no evidence to show we can get high enough from it to look back and see what shape it actually is.

Of course, if we could do that, get on a rocket and fly up high enough to take a picture of the earth from far enough away to see what shape it actually is, that would solve the problem once and for all.

And, if what NASA tells us is true, we should have unlimited imagery of the globe earth spinning in space. But try looking for that. You will find heaps of video from the space station, in low-earth orbit, about 200 miles above the earth.

So there is plenty of imagery from “low earth” orbit. But nothing actually, when you try for full globe images, all we get is NASA CGI? “The Orbis/NASA Blue Marble imagery represents the most visually authentic global view of Planet Earth ever created. Our globes combine NASA’s newest generation of satellite imaging with Orbis’ cutting-edge globemaking technology. The resulting creation represents a new level of global cartography – highly photorealistic world globes.”

So instead of giving us an actual view of the earth globe, from an actual camera far enough away to see the globe, NASA is excited to give us “most visually authentic global view of Planet Earth ever created.”

So NASA are getting better at giving us CGI globes. And they are celebrating that.

But the elephant in the room is the complete absence of any real globe imagery????

12. Jerry paul

I found all kinds of actual pictures of the earth from space. You simply don’t want to accept it.

• Flat Earth Facts

Post the links of real photos of earth from space. There are almost none. If you read the “fine print” you will find almost all of them are compositions made from low-earth satellite data pasted onto a globe.

• John

It’s funny to see this argument as it is the one I used against my father when we argued over FE initially!! I was so angry that an engineer and math savant and hero of mine could fall for such lunacy, FE indeed🙄, then I went looking for real photos and the only ones I could find were earth rise, which is clearly doctored, and thus began my 12 month journey to accepting I’d been lied to on a scale previously unimaginable to me

• HenkSchuring

clearly doctored? why? and what about all the other pictures https://www.planetary.org/space-images/pictures-of-earth-by-planetary-spacecraft there are almost 100 different pictures from all kinds of (mostly) planetary spacecrafts from 6 different space agencies.
what about the geostationary weather satellites, again from 6 different space agencies.
all “clearly doctored” or “obviously fake”?
start providing a valid argument.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Hank

You seem to miss the point. We live in the age of PhotoShop. I can also give you a link to a page showing hundreds of “photos” of mermaids. Does that prove mermaids exist?

Many of your photos are obvious fakes. And some others may be more realistic fakes. The point I made before is even your “photos” are not consistent. NASA has shown us in the Apollo missions that the earth from the moon appears the same size as the moon from the earth. Of course that was a mistake in their fake moon mission film. But you count that as one of your “real” photos of Earth from space. And at the same time you have another “real” photo showing a ginormous earth from the moon surface.

So even within your collection of so-called photos of earth from space, there is no consistiency.

And anyone can make a picture of the earth from space in PhotoShop in 3 minutes. So what does it prove? I can make twenty this afternoon and post them tonight.

My point is WHERE IS THE LIVE FEED? Yes. There are a couple of sites providing daily or hourly pictures of the earth “from space”, but they have got all that imagery anyhow from their low-earth satellites.

BUT THERE IS NO REALTIME LIVE FEED. That is my point. They can not do that. Although they have got low earth satellite imagery for the whole globe they don’t have it all at the same time. They have to stich it together and adjust for the different times various parts of the images were taken. So they have to do some serious computation to come up with these globe images they are showing.

WHERE IS THE LIVE FEED? It would be very useful.

Yes. There are few supposed pictures of earth from space. But considering NASA and other space agencies around the world have been paid billions of dollars for these few pictures that a ten year old could create in PhotoShop in five minutes, it is not much to show from such a huge investment of money.

It is really ridiculous, looking through the photos on your link. Embarrassing. Remember the huge earth from moon I linked to last time? Now check out this tiny earth from the moon? How can they both be real photos? This is rubbish…

https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20140513_earthmoon_square1.png

• Flat Earth Facts

Really? You believe this is real?

https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20151229_Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_color_2stretch_20151211_141513.jpg

That is a low earth satellite based mock-up of earth with an imaginary moon surface behind assembled in Photoshop. Note that the earth is the wrong size, according to NASA’s “REAL” Apollo photos of the earth from the Moon. According to NASA’s ‘real’ photos the earth appears in the moon’s sky the same size as the moon appears in earth’s sky. It can not be of course, but that is how it appears in NASA’s ‘real’ Apollo photos.

So do you agree that the photos NASA provided of earth from the moon are fake? Because the size is very different from this photoshopped earth from the moon picture you provide?

So the links you provide have no validity because so many of these photos, maybe all these photos, are fakes.

And as far as the weather satellites, yes, they provide daily images. But they are most likely computed from the low earth satellite data. They are obviously not photographs. That is my point. These are digital compilations. For example:

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

That is NOT a photo. That is a digital computer generated image. From real data for sure. But that real data may well be collected from low earth satellites.

There is no real-time livestream. There is no webcam pointed at earth? Why not? Sure they can process some data and give us a daily or hourly image. But where is the live feed?

• HenkSchuring

the size of an object in a photograph depends on the camera angle (and distance, but from the moon that will have been about the same). a wide angle camera will give a small angular size and a narrow angle camera will give a larger angular size. you may be convinced of it being fake, but your argument fails, and so that is all it is, a convincement without any proof. in this case the LRO used a narrow angle camera.
geostationary weather satellites: what is “obvious” about their pictures not being real? You provide no argument whatsoever.
You ask for pictures. But when given to you, you stubbornly refuse to accept they are real, without any valid argument. Clear case of “my mind is made up, so don’t confuse me with facts”

• Jerry

Satilites orbit. You can only orbit a sphere if you expect it to be a stable orbit.

• Flat Earth Facts

That is your model, your idea of course. But if the earth was flat then the model would be different. The satellites would be going around in circles above the plane. So you can propose that it works one way or the other.

However, I do agree, that the globe model is very persuasive and convincing, and flat earth people have no idea how satellites could operate above a flat plane so they say, insanely, that satellites don’t exist.

So yes, I respect your point and it is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have available at the moment.

• Jerry

Thank you for that confirmation. I still don’t understand what keeps you undecided and unsure about all the rest of my points. The facts of every scientific discipline that confirms the shape and position of planet earth. Such as astrophysics and all the space agencies that exist all over our planet. You seem to understand all the data that confirms a round earth but you still refuse to accept the conclusion. You say all the evidence confirms a round earth yet you still have doubts. You refuse to speak about the other scientific disciplines, like physics, spectroscopy, even geology confirm round earth due to gravity yet you question if gravity even exists. You just don’t make sense to me. In one sentence you say the most intelligent things and then you conclude something entirely opposite. What exactly stops you from accepting the physics of gravity. We just confirmed gravitational waves a few years ago that confirm, once again, Einstein’s theories about gravity and its effects on our universe. What is stopping you from accepting that gravity is real? Because it makes no sense to me how people could rely solely on their senses when we have so many aids that are far superior to our meat and bone senses. How do we do all the great things we see done on earth and still you cannot accept that we can’t travel straight up far enough away from earth to determine its shape? What is it in your head that stops you from realizing that we actually do and have traveled away from earth, regardless of its shape.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Jerry

There is no proof that the earth is a globe. You are using the word “round”, everyone agrees the world is round, even the flat earthers, they believe in a round earth. But it is flat. So everyone believes it is round, some believe it is a globe and some believe it is flat.

There is no scientific proof that the earth is a globe.

We are stuck here, on this tiny planet, we can not see the planet we are stuck on, all we can do is look up in the sky and try to imagine what our planet is like by seeing how the stars and planets and sun move in the sky.

So this is where the idea of a globe earth came from. Many great thoughtful intelligent men in the past pondered over these questions, about what is happening in the sky, and they came up with theories about what the planet we are on is actually like by trying to explain how the movements in the sky are caused.

-So you can come up with different theories to explain what we see happening in the sky. This idea of a spinning globe earth circling the sun every year, it is the idea that has become accepted as the most likely theory and it is the theory that has been worked on and developed by many great thoughtful men.

So they have come up with a very good scientific predictive model based on the earth being a globe spinning in space. The model is good because the predictions of the globe earth model can be tested against our actual observations and there is a great degree of accuracy in the predictions of the model compared to our actual observations.

Of course that is because the model has been tweaked to match the observations.

So the point is this is just a theory. We have no proof actually that the earth is a globe. The only thing is we have this beautiful theory of the blue planet floating in space. There is absolutely no proof that the earth is a globe. All we have is this model, that gives good predictions, presuming the earth is a globe.

So it is the point of this website actually to work out if it is possible to propose another model, with different initial assumptions, that will work as well or better than the globe earth model.

So, as you have realized, I know everything about the globe earth model and respect it as the best and only working model we currently have. But I know it is only a model and we have not got any proof of the actual real situation of the earth.

You can observe something, from a limited angle of view, like we have a VERY limited ability to observe the universe from earth, and you can imagine some system and think it might be working like that, but the actual working of the system might be, in reality, completely different.

And actually it is my strong suspicion that the globe earth model is completely incorrect and the actual situation is quite different.

So yes, globe earth theory is a good model. But there is no proof at all we are on a spinning globe.

The theory falls apart, for example, when you consider, according the globe earth model, earth is spinning, rotating at about 1000 MPH at the equator and simultaneously orbiting the sun once every year and the whole solar system is also orbiting the center of the universe, so there are so many movements going on in different directions and rotations. So we should be able to measure these movements, and scientists over the years have formulated many experiments to try and detect the movement of the earth, however they have all failed to detect any movement.

So actually the earth is not moving. The earth is stationary. And this fact, it immediately invalidates the spinning globe model of the earth, because the earth is stationary.

Of course they have to ignore the results of these experiments showing the earth is stationary…

So if you look at it in detail the spinning globe model is very nice, but also in many ways very flawed. So because of the flaws we can know for certain the current globe earth model is not completely correct. But I suspect it is really totally fundamentally flawed.

No real scientist will argue with these points.

They like to advertise to the general population that the “science is settled,” “the earth is a spinning globe,” but no real scientist has a closed mind like this. Real scientist accepts the current scientific beliefs as steps in a process of ultimately attaining the truth. So none of the science is settled. Science is a process. The spinning globe model is the best science can come up with at the moment, but it has got faults, it is obviously not completely correct, and a real scientist will be open to considering other explanations.

You have to realize there is no proof the earth is a spinning globe. It is just a theory, just an idea, born out of the imagination of some ancient star-gazing thinkers. But they might have been totally incorrect…

• John

Can’t believe I need to explain this difference between photographs and images🤯 In fact I’m not going to bother, this is beyond pointless if you lack the basic comprehension needed to Newgate in a civil conversation

• Flat Earth Facts

That is my whole point. These are not photos. They are images, created in PhotoShop. Many are created with the help of real data from low-earth satellites, plotted onto a globe. These are not real photographs. They are images created in image manipulation software.

13. Jerry

There are all kinds of evidence of a round, spinning earth. I have seen the rockets take off in person.
< >

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. Of course Jerry, “There are all kinds of evidence for a globe spinning earth…” But you don’t give us any evidence. Science does not give us any actual evidence. Science gives us an admittedly very good predictive model. But that is all we have. This model of a blue marble spinning and floating in space. It is only the dream of some ancient thinker. Nothing more than that.

Of course it might be true, or it might not be true.

Seeing a rocket take off and disappear into the sky does not prove anything except finally this time NASA was able to get it to go up high enough to be out of our view without exploding. Occasionally they can manage this.

But after the NASA rocket disappears in the sky they are able to tell us any wild and wonderful story about what it is doing and they get billions of dollars of funding to tell these wild and wonderful stories and of course they have to provide the occasional CGI image or viedo.

Any you just blindly believe whatever they tell you.

Such a fool.

The reality is we have a very very limited ability to observe the system that is our galaxy and our solar system. We are inside the system, so we can see movement between the earth and the sun for example. But there is no way we can tell if it is the earth moving around the sun or if it is the sun moving around the earth. And because science has always failed in its attempts to measure any movement of the earth, it is much more likely that the sun is going around the earth.

Both systems, geocentric and heliocentric, are equally valid from a scientific point of view, but our “scientists” are sun-worshippers and they can not bear the idea that the earth may be in the center and stationary. Although that is equally valid from a scientific point of view as having the earth rotating around the sun, our esteemed scientists preferer to believe the sun is in the center and the earth is circling the sun, that is their religious choice, it has nothing to do with science. If they were to follow the science they would have to admit there are a number of different possibilities, depending on what they take as the reference point, and there is no way they can tell exactly what is really happening because we are within the system and we can therefore only measure things relative to our position, or we can measure things relative to the position of the sun, etc.

You don’t know Jerry, but actually real scientists have to agree with me. What you believe is not real science, it is the general brainwashing. Actual scientist, he knows that there are so many things we don’t know, and many things also that we can’t know because we don’t have sufficient ability to observe things happening in space. Our information and perspective is so limited. So we just do not have the ability to observe what is happening and how it is working. Therefore all we can do is dream, like the thinker who came up with the blue marble idea. It is a dream. Not that anyone has actually ever seen it.

Of course if we could see it, then everyone would believe. If we could fly to the moon and look back at the earth, then we could see, if we could have satellites far enough away from the earth sending back glorious 8K Super HD livestreams of the earth. But, at the moment these are only dreams. No on can go to the moon and there are no livestreams of the earth from the supposedly thousands of satellites which should be capable of transmitting them back to us…

All we have is some daily or hourly cloud map pictures of the globe earth clobbered together from the low-earth orbit satellite data…

So dream on.

Be very very very sure that I will be the first one to celebrate and accept the proof of the blue marble floating in space, if the scientists can actually prove it.

But now they can’t even go to the moon.

Now NASA has so much trouble even getting a rocket off the ground.

It is all so embarrassing