# Distances in Southern Hemisphere

Flat earthers report inconsistencies with distances in the southern hemisphere. By calculating the actual distance contained in a degree of latitude and then multiplying this by 360 they calculate the total circumference of the earth at that point in the south and compare it with corresponding circumference for the same latitude in the north. And in this way they come up with circumferences in the south that are not only greater than the corresponding circumference for the same latitude in the north but are even greater than the circumference of the earth at the equator, which, on a globe, should be the greatest circumference.

There appears to be some confirmation that this is a fact from the world of science with noted figures including Neil deGrasse Tyson stating that the earth is “pear shaped.” Previously they were saying it was an oblate spheroid, but still symmetrical on the north and south half’s. But now it seems some scientists are suggesting the southern half of the ‘globe’ is bigger than the norther half of the globe. So if this is true it is not a globe. A pear is not a globe.

## Zetetic Astronomy by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham

Flat earthers often quote from the book of Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe”

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816–1884) was an English inventor and writer who wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe under the pseudonym “Parallax”. His work was based on his decade-long studies of Earth and was originally published as a 16-page pamphlet (1849), which he later expanded into a 430-page book (1881).

Rowbotham’s method, which he called Zetetic Astronomy, models the Earth as an enclosed plane centered at the North Pole and bounded along its perimeter by a wall of ice, with the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars moving only several hundred miles above the surface of Earth.

Dr. Samuel Rowbotham in “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe” states:

The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions!

One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South travelled the farther the divide.

“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.”

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.

You’ve mixed miles and kilometers in your equation. The Earth is 24,901 miles at the equator, and you state that the distance between port Phillip and Cape Horn is 9000 miles, it’s 9140 KM, or 5679 miles. Please get your number systems correct before writing these articles. Both Australia and Chili use the metric system so any distances will be meters, kilometers, etc.

This is not written by me, it is mostly taken from Eric Dubay’s ‘200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball’. And like most of it, as you have pointed out, it is not written very well. However, in the past, some years ago, I did some calculations myself and will try and find them. At that time it appeared to me there may be some inconsistency. But I have not studied it sufficiently to make any conclusive statement one way or the other.

The distances in the south definitely do not work in the classic flat earth model. They are far too big. The sunsets where you literally see the sun going down, do not work either.

However, the curvature definitely isn’t there either. So what’s going on here ? Maybe this is just a simulation which does not need to fit to some 3d world shape laws ? Like the contradictions in the double split experiment …