# Distances in Southern Hemisphere

Flat earthers argue the earth is a flat plane with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica is a ring enclosing the oceans. The equator a circle half-way between the Noth Pole in the center and the outer ring that is Antartica. So this model requires that the distances per degree of latitude start at zero at the North Pole and increase up the equator. On a globe the circumference of the equator is the largest and as you cross the equator into the south the distance per degree of latitude will decrease until eventually it becomes zero at the South Pole. In the flat earth model, however, we would expect the distance per degree of latitude to continue to increase all the way up to the Antarctica ring at the edge of the circular flat earth.

Nowadays there is some support from science that in fact the southern part of the “globe” is larger than the northern part and we have Neil De Grass Tyson declaring that the earth is “pear shaped”.

So there does appear to be some discrepancy. Flat earthers quote reports of ships attempting to circumnavigate Antarctica and finding the distance far greater than they expected and examples of navigators getting lost and going off course in the Southern Hemisphere and they suggest this is because the earth is not a globe and therefore distances in the south are not what we expect them to be.

They also give examples of measuring the distance covered by one degree of latitude in the south and comparing it with the distance covered by one degree of latitude at the same longitude in the north. I have done some of these calculations myself and it does seem there is a discrepancy. For example I got results suggesting the circumference of the globe in Australia was larger than it was at the equator. But I could have made a mistake. However this does seem to be an area where research is needed as it seems to be rather simple to determine if such a discrepancy exists or not.

Of course scientists no longer believe the earth is a globe. Many say it is an oblate spheroid, a squashed globe, and more recently we have their claim that it is now pear shaped.

**Conclusion: If the Southern Hemisphere is not actually symmetrical with the Northern Hemisphere it may not prove the earth is flat, but certainly would prove the earth is not a globe.**

# Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

- 35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.
- 36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts
- 37) Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from 1838 to 1842, and in his journals also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.
- 38) To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them.
- 39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.
- 40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.
- 41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.
- 42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

This is a summary of some [very superficial] research I did in 2015 which I thought, if my calculations are actually correct, would prove the earth is not a globe.

madhudvisa says:

June 18, 2015 at 10:06 pm

Hi Rick

Before reading your post I went through a similar exercise which confirms what you have done. I am also feeling that maybe I made a mistake and would appreciate it if others can check it and let us know if there is any error in the calculation. Otherwise it seems solid proof that the earth is not a ball…

I think I just came across the most obvious and totally undeniable proof that the earth is not a globe.

Global coordinates are latitude and longitude. Both are in degrees. Latitude is the circles that go around the globe. The circle around the equator is zero and it goes up to 90 degrees north, that is the north pole and down to 90 degrees south, that is the south pole. The distance each degree covers is about 81 miles I think and that is going to be the same on a ball earth and a flat earth. So not controversy here.

But Longitude is the number of degrees starting from Greenwich, which is close to London. That is zero and it goes around the globe 360 degrees back to Greenwich…

So on a globe the distance that one degree would cover changes dramatically. It is very small at the poles and at its maximum at the equator.

So if the Earth was a globe we would expect the distance covered within one degree of latitude to increase from the north pole up to the equator where it would be at its maximum and then it should start to decease back to zero at the south pole…

This is very easy to check and it appears that it does not decrease as you go into the southern hemisphere but instead increases. It is very simple to check and anyone can do it.

For example:

Very roughly the distance from the equator and of the trip from New York to Los Angeles and the distance from the equator of the trip between Sydney and Perth is about the same. Very roughly the trip in the US is around 35 degrees North of the Equator and the trip in Australia is roughly 35 degrees South of the Equator…

So we would expect to travel roughly the same distance as we travel through one degree of longitude on both trips. But the big surprise is we do not. We have to travel a lot more kilometeres to cover one degree of latitude in Australia than we have to do in the US. Which can not be if the earth is a globe…

New York: 40° 45′ N, 73° 59′ W — Los Angeles: 34° 3′ N, 118° 14′ W

On this trip you cover 44.25 degrees of longitude (118.23 – 73.98 = 44.25) so 3936 km / 44.25 = 89 Kilometers per degree of longitude. Which is OK for a globe earth because if you multiply 89 * 360 (360 degrees makes a complete circle) that comes to 32040 km which is considerably less than the circumference of the earth at equator = 40075 km. So everything is good for a globe earth. Great.

But things start to get very crazy when we do the same thing for the Sydney – Perth trip…

Sydney: 33° 52′ S, 151° 12′ E — Perth: 31° 57′ S 115° 52′ E

Here we cover 35 degrees of longitude and the distance is about 4110 km so that means we have to travel 117.5 km (4110 / 35) to cover one degree of longitude. Which is much more than the 89 kilometers we had to travel to cover one degree in the Northen Hemisphere at roughly the same distance from the equator… Very strange. Very strange indeed.

And even stranger if we multiply out the distance we have to travel in one degree by 360 to get the circumference of the ‘ball’ earth in Australia it comes to 117.5 * 360 = 42300 km. Which is totally impossible if the earth is a globe… Because the circumference at the equator is only 40075 km… So in Australia, South of the Equator, the circumference of the earth must be less than 40075… If the earth is a globe. But it is not and anyone can easily check this.

So unless you can point out some mistake in this calculation this is 100% solid proof that the earth is not a globe…

It is rather uncomfortable for me so if I have made a mistake please someone point it out…

We should get much the same circumference for the earth in Australia as they have in the USA… Something like 32000 km. But it is not 32000 km, it is about 42000 km… This is impossible. 10,000 km bigger than what we would expect if the earth was a globe… More than 2000 km bigger than the earth is at the equator. Certainly not a globe…

I used Google map distance measure to get an estimate, which was 2049 mi or 3298 km. A quick web search found distances from 2044 to 2051 miles. Google map calculated road distance was 3934 km. I was curious where you got the 4110 km number. Could it have been a road distance?

Looks like some people just have trouble with basic mathematics and geometry. Here’s another one you can check for yourself:

Adelaide to Canberra (both in Australia and roughly at the same latitude as each other, separated by about 11 degrees of longitude) is roughly about 1000km apart. At the equivalent latitude in the northern hemisphere you’ll find that Charlotte NC and Little Rock AK are similarly 11 degrees distant and about 1000km apart.

By the way, this makes those points of the globe somewhere around 30,000km circumference… 10K smaller than the equator, as one would expect from a sphere.

Check it yourself… the earth is a globe, folks.

Yes. Your example seems to be good and yes, seems to support the globe model for sure. Maybe try for longer distances like Sydney to Perth for example compared with some similar distance in North America. Longer distance should be more accurate, but yes, your math seems quite solid…

if the earth is flat there is a simple way to prove it. Have 2 identical aircraft take off at the same time and fly at the same speed. One plane will follow the Tropic of Cancer while the other will follow the Tropic of Capricorn. If the earth is roughly spherical the planes will arrive back at their starting points at roughly the same time. If on the other hand the world is flat the plane following the Tropic of Capricorn will arrive back at its starting point much later.

Yes. It is a very good idea.

The “pear shape” is an enormously exaggerated term for just in the order of 40 meters (!) difference between south polar radius and north polar radius. On a scale of about 6,358,000 meters average this can have no effect on measured distances.