Ten Proofs the Earth is a Globe
It is surprising that scientists seem unable to give convincing, valid proofs that the earth is a globe. On the contrary, over the years, a number of scientists have constructed experiments to prove the earth is a rotating globe but all have failed to conclusively prove this.
In this article we analyze ten proofs that the earth is a globe commonly given by scientists and determine if they actually prove the earth is a globe or not.
1. The Moon
Globe earthers see a round shadow coming across the face of the moon during a lunar eclipse and they presume this is a shadow of the earth and they take this as proof the earth is a globe. However there is no guarantee this is actually a shadow of the earth. According to the Vedic model there is a dark planet called Rahu who causes the solar and lunar eclipses. So, according to this model, the shadow we see on the moon during lunar eclipses is caused by the dark planet Rahu, not the earth.
Conclusion: The shadow seen on the moon during the lunar eclipses is not proof the earth is a globe.
2. Ships and the horizon
Globe earthers claim that ships appearing, mast first over the horizon and disappearing bottom first proves the earth is a globe. Their idea is when we see the top of the ship appearing over the horizon or the bottom of the ship disappearing we are seeing the ship come up or go down under the curve of the earth. This is a mistake on their part and very obviously a mistake. The error can be demonstrated using a camera with a zoom lens. You can look at a ship at a certain zoom level and see it disappear over the horizon but if you increase the zoom you can see the ship again appear, in full. Which proves the ship has not gone over the curve of the earth, rather it disappears because it has reached the perspective vanishing point, and by zooming in on it you extend that perspective vanishing point further out, thus the ship again appears.
Another proof that ships disappearing at the horizon are not disappearing because they are going over the curve of the earth is they do not disappear at the correct distance according to mathematical calculations based on the earth being a 8000 mile diameter ball.
Conclusion: The clam of globe earthers that ships disappearing over the horizon are going around the curve of the earth is demonstrably false. They are disappearing at the perspective vanishing point and can be made to appear again by zooming in and thus pushing the perspective vanishing point further out.
3. Varying star constellations
Globe earthers point out that on moving around on the earth the positions of the stars in the sky change rather quickly. So they take this as proof the earth is a globe. As they claim moving around on a flat plane would not cause such a great difference in the visible star constellations.
Conclusion: This appears to be a valid point supporting the globe model and we have made similar observations in regard to the visibility of the polestar from the south on a flat earth. There would be no apparent reason for the polestar not being visible from Antartica on a flat earth. But it is not. So this observation is consistent with the earth being a globe and inconsistent with the earth being flat. It is not, however, proof that the earth is a globe.
4. Shadows and sticks
Globe earthers claim the fact that sticks of the same length when place on different parts of the earth product shadows of different lengths prove the earth is a globe. They are claiming the length of the shadow is effected by the shape of the earth. This is completely incorrect. The length of the shadow of the stick is determined by the position of the sun overhead in the sky. If the sun is directly overhead the stick has no shadow and if it is at the horizon rising or setting the stick’s shadow is very long.
The sun is seen in the same position in the sky in both the flat earth and globe earth models. So there will be no difference in the length of the stick’s shadow on a globe earth or a flat earth. The difference is that on a globe earth it is presumed the movement of the sun in the sky is caused by the rotation of the globe, while on a flat earth it is presumed the sun is actually moving in the sky. But the relative position of the sun and the stick, and therefore the length of the shadow, in both models remains identical.
Conclusion: The varying length of shadows of sticks at different places does not prove the earth is a globe. The length of the shadow is a function of the sticks position relative to the position of the sun in the sky. Not the shape of the earth.
5. Seeing farther from higher
Globe eathers claim on a flat plane increasing altitude would not allow us to see any further into the distance, so they claim that, in fact, we can see further as we increase altitude that is proof the earth is a globe.
This is not a valid argument. If you imagine an infinate flat plane and you are standing on it. You can not see infinitely. You look around you and the law of perspective works. You see a horizon line in the center of your view and everything converges to that horizon which is the perspective vanishing point. That vanishing point will become more distant as you increase your elevation above the plane.
It is not very safe for globe earthers to talk about what you can see on a globe as we have so many factual examples of being able to see things in the distance which would be impossible to see on a globe.
Conclusion: This argument is not valid. Globe earthers do not think things through. It is a complete error, craziness, to state that as you rise above a flat plane your field of view does not increase. This is not a proof that the earth is a globe. It is completely incorrect. As you rise above a flat plane your field of view increases, the horizon extends further out.
6. Ride a plane
Flat earthers claim you can see the curvature of the earth riding on an airplane and looking out the window. But this is absolutely not true. You are viewing the horizon when you look out the window of a plane, the exact same horizon we view from earth.
If you go to the top of Mt. Everest you are about 5.5 miles up, look around. All the way around you, 360 degrees, the horizon is completely flat. Airplanes typically cruse at about 7-8 miles hight. You are looking at the exact same perfectly flat horizon you can view from the top of Mt. Everest. Perfectly flat. If it is not curved at 5.5 miles, it is still not curved at 7 miles.
Conclusion: You can not see any curvature flying on a plane. You are seeing the horizon and the horizon is totally flat. This is a globe earth lie or hopeful imagination on their part. You can not prove the earth is flat by flying on an airplane.
7. Look at other planets
Globe earthers look at the other planets and presume earth is just like the other planets. This may be the case. But it also may not be the case. We have no way to prove that the earth is the same as other planets we see flying in the sky above us. It may be that the earth is situated completely differently from the planets we see above us.
Conclusion: Looking at planets in the sky and presuming earth is a planet like them is not proof the earth is a globe. It is speculation. It may be incorrect. The earth may be situated completely differently from the planets we see floating in the sky.
8. Time zones only possible on a globe earth
Globe earthers claim the sun could only be in different positions in the sky at different times on a globe earth. This is a ridiculous claim. On a globe earth or on a flat earth we can not see the entire sky from any one point. We see it from different angles and we see a different part of it depending on where we are. In the globe model we presume the objects in the sky are relatively stationary and rise and set because of the earth’s rotation and in the flat earth model we presume the earth is stationary and the objects in the sky are actually moving, rotating, thus causing them to appear to rise and set over our heads.
It is very obvious that our vision is limited. We can not see the whole sky. Flat earthers presume the objects are coming overhead and disappearing at the horizon. We can see this happening with clouds. We can see the clouds appearing, or rising, at the horizon on one side, traveling across the sky so they are directly over our heads and continuing on to the other side where they appear to come down to the horizon and set as they disappear over the horizon. We know the clouds are not rising and setting. They are simply passing over our heads. But the law of perspective makes it appear the clouds are rising on one horizon and setting on another.
Conclusion: Time zones are determined by the relative position of the sun to a particular place on the earth. So the sun will rise and set and cause time zones in the same way on a flat earth and on a globe earth. Therefore the existence of time zones is NOT proof the earth is a globe.
9. Using gravity to prove the earth is a globe
Globe earthers try to claim gravity proves the earth is a globe. When, in reality, gravity was only invented to try to explain how the earth could be a globe. Gravity is the magic force that makes the seemingly impossible concept of the earth being a globe possible.
Flat earthers do not believe in gravity and globe earthers can not prove the existence of gravity. Gravity is a theoretical concept conceived of within the globe earth model. It has no place in a flat earth model.
Conclusion: Gravity has no relevance outside the globe earth model, it is not relevant to the flat earth model and can not be used to prove the earth is a globe. It is a concept born of the globe model. Gravity is a byproduct of the globe model, gravity is produced by the globe model. It can not be used to prove the globe model.
10) Images from NASA
Globe earthers claim images from NASA prove the earth is a globe. But NASA has lied to us about so many things. The great lie of sending men to the moon is now exposed and it seems almost everything NASA tells us is riddled with lies. And on close examination the few photos of the earth from space NASA have provided us with turn out to be creations of photoshop, not actual photographs at all.
So flat earthers claim there are no actual photographs of earth from space and NASA, who have faked so many things in the past, have no credibility, so we have no way of knowing if anything NASA presents is real or just a simulation.
Conclusion: Photos from NASA are not proof of anything. Certainly not proof the earth is a globe.
Supporting Globe Earth Proofs
On we go, to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat!
1. The Moon
Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the planet’s, and it’s a great clue about the spherical shape of the Earth.
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical—absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
2. Ships and the horizon
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have noticed a very interesting phenomenon: Approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather seem to emerge from beneath the sea.
But—you say—ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in Pirates of the Caribbean, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie series). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: It’s round.
Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon” because of the curvature of the orange. If you would do that experiment with the ant approaching along a long road rather than a round object, the effect would change: The ant would slowly “materialize” into view (depending on how sharp your vision is).
3. Varying star constellations
This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted, “There are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface, Aristotle continued, claiming that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the “known” constellations go towards the horizon, to be replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:
4. Shadows and sticks
If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:
But they don’t. This is because the Earth is round, and not flat:
Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the Earth.
5. Seeing farther from higher
Standing on a flat plateau, you look ahead toward the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.
Next, climb up the closest tree—the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. Then look again, strain your eyes, and stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.
The higher up you climb, the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles—like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view—but that’s not the true reason. Even if you stood on a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from the greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomenon is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:
6. Ride a plane
If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-distance trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:
- Planes can travel in a relatively straight line for a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also circle the Earth without stopping.
- If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait to see the pictures from the new plane by Virgin Galactic—the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.
7. Look at other planets
The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics—specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances—our planet is the same.
In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show that other planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they take this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.
In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it. He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet—a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept, as it challenged a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.
A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (our sun would have to behave quite differently to accommodate the flat-earth theory) and what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets’ orbits and the effects of gravity). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.
8. The existence of time zones
The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found. In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone—so much so, that the sun will soon rise up again at the beginning of a new day.
This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.
Another point concerning timezones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.
9. The pull of gravity
Here’s an interesting fact about mass: It attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.
Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. (Imagine an ant walking around on a crystal ball. From the insect’s point of view, the only indication of movement would be the fact the ant is moving its feet—the shape of the surface would not change at all.) A sphere’s center of mass is in the center of the sphere, which means gravity will pull anything on the surface of the sphere straight down toward the center of the sphere. This will occur no matter where on the surface the object is located.
Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center, so the force of gravity will pull anything on the surface toward the middle of the plane. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you sideways toward the plane’s middle, not straight down like you usually experience when you stand on Earth.
I am quite positive that, even for Australians, an apple falls downwards, not sideways. But if you have your doubts, I urge you to try dropping something—just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you.
10. Images from space
In the past 60 years of space exploration, we’ve launched satellites, probes, and people into space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it), and many transmit amazing images to our receivers on Earth. In all of these photos, the Earth is (wait for it) spherical. The curvature of the Earth is also visible in the many, many, many, many photos snapped by astronauts aboard the International Space Station. You can see a recent example from ISS Commander Scott Kelly‘s Instagram right here:
You know what they say—a picture is worth a thousand words.
Moriel Schottlender is a software engineer at Wikimedia Foundation. This article was originally posted on her Smarter Than That blog in 2008.
60 Replies to “Ten Proofs the Earth is a Globe”
Land navigation test. Start at the north pole and travel true due south to the equator. Turn right 90 degrees west. Travel the same distance while staying on the equator. Then turn right 90 degrees again going true north. Travel the same distance and you will end up at the same spot you started. This cannot be done on a flat surface, but can be on a sphere because the curvature along the three segments closes the gap between the starting point and stopping point. Sort of like a three dimensional equilateral triangle.
How do you know what “true due south” is? Using a compass in your travels? This compass will always points to the north pole. So, if you are using a compass to determine your travels the results will also reflect the same on a flat earth. Dave Weiss (Flat Earth Dave on Youtube) reviews this very well, check him out. The earth is a plane.
Great point. In addition, if Earth’s globe how can your magnetic compass point North say at the Equator or supposed South Pole?
Does the compass needle point through center of the Earth?
Interesting point OTL. Particularly at the South Pole. Compass should point down into the ground to point at the North Pole.
You clearly don’t undertstand how compasses work.
They don’t point “to the north pole.” They instead orient themselves along the earths magnetic field lines, and at the equator, those are parallel to the surface.
Of course we all know that the compass points north towards the magnetic north pole, which is not exactly at the physical north pole. It is an approximation. Magnetic north pole, is, at least at the moment, in the north…
No the does not ” north towards the magnetic north pole, either”, if you mess aorund with a magent and a compass you’ll see this. They orientate themselves to be parrallel to the earths magnetic field lines.
And those field lines are parrallel to the ground near the equator.
On a flat earth this wouldn’t work at all.
The field lines at the equator wouldn’t be parrallel to the ground.
You have no idea at all what the field lines would be like on a flat earth..
Re: Looking at horizon from a passenger airplane sitting near a window. The horizon is distorted by the curve of the clear window material. But, in the cockpit there is no distortion and you can see that earth is flat.
@MLWilliams The test you (and many others) have proposed is excellent, except that once you try it out it proves the contrary as it fails. If you navigate as you suggested, and I recommend you to try it out yourself please, you will get lost, until you start to think again as you were on a plane indeed.
Used it in the army on long range patrols before GPS and it works. It is called “land navigation” for a reason and you use triangulation to confirm points. There is no way to make two 90 degree turns on a flat surface and end up at the point you started. It is able to be done on a globe using a three lines. You must use four line or a square on a flat surface. On the flat surface you have three 90 turns. On a globe you have two 90 turns and a third turn made under your feet as you walk the perimeters or curvature of the earth. Take any ball and draw a line from the top toward the bottom. Then draw a line down the line that is 90 degrees to the right. As you move along that curved line viewed from the top it serves as a vertical turn. Then draw another line down that line 90 degrees to the right again and you will end up where you started. That is what proves it on a spherical earth. Simple geometry. That is why maps have a north indicator and may have the magnetic deviation. If you see a flat map the features are distorted from the real thing as they do not accommodate the vertical curves. For example Alaska is very close to central Russia on a globe if you go north but far away on a flat map. This is why also Asian flights will fly what looks like a long northern curve flight path to the US. If you actually take a string on a globe between the two points it is shorter because
Of the curve of the earth. To fly a straight west line from there to the US west coast on a flat earth increases the distance significantly because it is shorter to go north over the hump.
The Earth is flat.
If it were a spinning ball, the sun would have to rise straight up & down in relation to the spin.
Affix a stationary LED flashlight ‘sun’ to a desk.
Rotate in an office chair.
Doesn’t matter the angle.
Always 100% straight circle line paths.
Here is the problem with ‘ball’ Earth.
The sun rotates to the right as it goes down.
This debunks ‘Globe Earth’ because it could only rise straight up & go straight down if it were the Earth rotating. Since it does not go straight up & down, we can prove it is the sun rotating around the Earth.
Additionally, if the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, the Earth will have to ‘rotate 1,100 mph’ just to complete a single revolution in 1 hour.
Trouble with that, is the Atmosphere would be out of sync. Some Globe believers then try to say ‘But, the atmosphere is spinning at the same rate as Earth! That’s why there are no 1,100 mph wind storms!’
What’s spinning it, then?
‘Object at rest stays at rest till reacted upon.’
What’s reacting upon the atmosphere?
60 miles to 600 miles high, depending who you ask.
Are trees pushing the air 1,100 mph?
No. They snap off & break 90 mph during hurricanes.
If Earth was rotating even half of the 1,100 mph (550 mph) it would still be enough to decimate every tree on the planet, & lay the surface of the Earth bare. Imagine the tidal waves?
Even if it were possible to ‘spin the atmosphere with the trees’ air is self braking. The moment you turn a fan off, the air soon stops moving because air molecules slam into each other, braking the wind.
Globe Earth is the devil’s lie.
The Earth is Flat.
There is no curve.
I’ve been up 7 miles high in planes.
Aligned the horizon to camera grid.
Perfectly straight across.
Even in pictures, it shows perfectly straight when aligned to camera edit lines.
CNN showed video of a ‘high altitude camera’ going up to ‘prove the curve’ that doesn’t exist.
As the balloon went up, it flapped in the wind, & the ‘curve’ inverted upside down as it flapped due to the fisheye lens they were using, debunking the globe lie.
Nikon P900/P1000 cameras with 83x+ zoom can pull ships back into view after they have already ‘gone over the curve’ which isn’t possible if they ‘went over the curve’ proving they never went over the curve.
If you use their official formula of 8″ mi/squared for ‘curvature’ you see things that should have been 1 mile ‘below the curve’ but aren’t.
Globe Ball promoters got busted.
It’s all a lie to (try) to ‘debunk’ God.
Flat Earth = 100% fact.
There’s no debunking that.
Hi James. Too many points in one post.
The thing about the sun is the earth is tilted in relation to the sun except at the equinoxes, the two days in the year when the day and night are equal. On those days sun will come straight up and go straight down. But on other days, because of the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun, the sun will not move over the earth in a straight line.
You can test it with your led flashlight and your office chair. Sure, if you spin around vertical, then sun will always come up and down straight, as it does on the equinoxes. But if you can somehow tilt yourself so the top half of your body is further away from the ‘sun’ than your bottom half, then rotate on that axis, you will find the sun is no longer coming up and going down in a straight line.
So mostly all these things are nicely explained in the globe earth model but you don’t understand the model.
You haven’t ‘debunked’ anything.
NASA used to claim ‘photos’ taken from low altitude planes were ‘proof’ the Earth is curved. Problem since middle school education is, we’ve been more than 2x the heights of these alleged ‘curved photo proofs’ in science/history books & still seen 0 curve.
NASA’s own ‘Curve Calculator’ at 8 inches per mile squared debunks the ‘curve.’ At 1 mile, 1 x 1 x 8 or 8 inches. At 2 miles it’s 2 x 2 x 8 or 32 inches. At mile 3, it’s 3 x 3 x 8 or 72 inches.
Frozen lake experiments showing lights 12 inches above ice from 8 to dozens of miles away debunks the curve.
The trouble with the ‘curve’ is that it’s missing.
Other than normal topological variations on the flat plane, it can’t be found.
To top this off, Obama claimed NASA sent him a ‘Blue Marble Photo’ in his 2015 tweet that showed an edited (CGI) image where rotating it upside down reveals the right side shows SEX in capital letters, because it’s a fake ‘photo’ ahem, CGI/edited image.
Additionally, remember when they used to claim the lie ‘Ships disappear over the curve!’ when they were about 3 miles out (out -of-range of normal human eyesight), but now they have the Nikon P900 & Nikon P1000 model cameras with 83x + zoom levels that debunk the ‘ball’ that does not exist.
If they can pull ships back in ‘after they disappeared over the curve’ it means the (alleged) curve just isn’t there. They lied to us. Man up & admit this. 😉
Yes. Of course. We are just presenting their arguments to be fair, to present both sides of the story.
But, as you know, and as every honest person knows who cares to investigate it, our observations of what we can see in the distance do not tally with what we should be able to see if we were on a ball 8,000 miles in diameter. There is a serious problem here for the globe earth people and very difficult for them to explain it of course.
Look, I demonstrated using simple “plane geometry” that if you are on a plane (flat surface), and you make 90 degree turns, you MUST have three 90 degree turns in the same direction (creating 4 straight legs) to end up at your starting point. If you are on a sphere you only need two 90 degree turns in the same direction creating three straight legs to end up where you started. We can debate all day long about NASA, ships on horizon (not including proven bending of image light waves), and my buddy’s mom’s BFF knows a guy that says it is a hoax. All of this babbling does not disprove simple plane geometry is wrong when it comes to navigation, not to even mention coordinate geometry. Until you can demonstrate how you can proceed in straight line on a flat surface and make 2 – 90 degree turns and end up in the same spot you started, then any further argument is nothing more than “my dad can lick your dad” school yard monkey bars argument. If you need a clue, Get a Geometry for Dummies book.
Yes. Very good point. Seems like an experiment anyone could easily perform, on land or on water. You can try it in your city even, you could fly up your drone, one mile and make a 90 degree turn and than one mile and make another 90 degree turn then another mile and make another 90 degree turn and see if you end up back at your starting point? If you do it is a globe, if you don’t it is flat. Someone should try it.
MLWilliams or FEF,
Please provide a real testable example on Earth of traveling in provably, precise straight lines over distance only interesected again by provably, precise straight lines and returning to the same position you started at & the entire journey consistent only of at most two perpendicular directional changes and the entire journey for Ing a triangle. All curves must eventually turn back on themselves. IMO, since the curve is not from the Plain you travel on it must be in the directional line you travel.
Have a Great day!
Yes. I would like some more details on this. If we are on a globe it should work even on a small scale. Even one mile, turn 90 degrees go straight one mile, turn 90 degrees go straight one mile, and you will be back at your starting point. But if it is flat you will be a mile away from your starting point. Very easy test.
So why doesn’t someone test it and settle the issue once and for all?
Easiest to do on water I expect but could be done on some flat area or with a drone flying at a fixed distance from the earth.
Very easy way to tell if the earth is a globe or flat. Very good and very simple experiment to perform. Someone should do it and document it.
On land there seems many locations that could work very well including the U.S. great plain states in the mid-west, the Australian outback & likely others. It should be noted the US unlike many European countries has a complete grid system for the road, highway and rail system. The country has been extensively measured by Masons and engineers for at least a couple centuries. If such curving actually occured it would be noted. Instead, from all serious indications I’ve read land has proved flatter than a pancake and the grid system developed extremely accurate and precise.
This is just another rubbish nonsense statement. You can’t join a triangle with three 90 degree angles…
The idea that you can make three 90 degree turns on a globe and end up back at your starting point is rubbish. It makes no difference at all if you are on a globe or flat. If you turn 3 times at 90 degree angle you are not going to get back to your original position. Total rubbish.
Totally agree it’s impossible to triangulate back anywhere because a triangle by definition uses straight lines. A ball by definition has no straight lines. Moreover, all angles on a triangle sum to 90 degrees. If you have two 90 degree angles you’ve already exceeded any capacity to form a triangle. He’s trying to fool you with an M.C. Escher type illusion. Don’t fall for it.
MLWilliams claims you can do it. Ask him.
Hi OTH. Yes. Actually ML Williams has explained it very nicely in his recent post. You can do it, but only if you start at the North Pole, or South Pole, if there is one, at least as far as I can understand it. But it is not as people have described it before. It is a special case, not working say in my Australian example.
Here is a simple test, which is how it was taught before GPS and does not rely on stellar views. Take a basketball and orient it so there is a horizontal line as the equator. Start at the top of the ball and draw a line from the top to the “equator” line. Then turn 90 degrees and proceed 1/4 th the way around the ball. Stop and turn right again. From there you are now facing north again and proceed and you will end up at the North Pole. What flat earth people cannot comprehend is that while you proceed in any direction, the sphere below you also enables a vertical turn. You make two horizontal turns, but unbeknownst to you, there is another verticals 90 degree turn under your feet. The whole idea of simple land navigation I learned as a y scout and a reconnaissance medic in the army over 13 years was that triangulation relies on straight lines and because of the curve of the earth what you see in a flat map is not what is true on the ground. That is why flights from Western Asia to the US and back take what looks to be a long curved route north near Alaska. We naturally want to draw a line straight on a flat map from LA to Tokyo, but if you use a string, you find that it adapts to tue curvature and route taken for the shorted trip is no where close to where it is in a flat map because flat maps distort the size, shapes, and positions of geographical features. Explor the difference between true north and magnetic north and you will see how magnetic direction is affected by your position in the earth.
It is nicely explained, I understand that, and yes, of course, on a sphere on any latitude line you can head to North, in the Northern Hemisphere, or South in the Southern Hemisphere and in all cases, on a sphere, you will end up at the pole. It is quite obvious. Not a surprise.
But the same thing will happen on a flat and circular plane, at least for the Northern Hemisphere, and for the Southern Hemisphere, flat earthers are contending that there is no actual South Pole, but Antartica forms a ring around the whole thing.
So I think everyone understands what you have presented.
It is very different from what others have been recently arguing. What was presented is that if you make two ninety degree turns traveling the same distance on all 3 “sides” you will end up at your starting point. This, I contend is nonsense, a mistake, wrong.
What you are saying is of course correct, but we all know that if we go North we will end up at the North Pole and if we go South, on a sphere, we will end up at the South Pole.
Your case, of having a 90 degree turn under your feet, that is only true if you travel a quarter of the way around the circumference of the earth. So they case you are quoting is a very specific example which will only work in a very limited set of circumstances. And yes. You can move along a latitude line and make a 90 degree turn at any point and end up at the pole. But I think everyone knows this, it is a natural consequence of the geometry of a sphere.
I must clarify that the example given assumes that people understand more than simple plane two dimensional geometry. So for someone to say there is no way (rubbish) to make two 90 degree turns and end up at the starting point demonstrates they cannot think in three dimensions. As you walk in a straight line there is also a verticals curve under your feet that you are ignorantly unaware of because your are walking on a sphere. For the person giving the example of traveling in Australia, plot out the same route on a globe using a string and you will see deviation near the halfway point because your flat map does not account for vertical impact on your route. If you can get access to a globe, take a piece of string and see how courses deviate from what seems an obvious straight on a flat map if you hold the ends of the string at the two points. Using a Tokyo to LA example demonstrates perfectly why pilots take routes that are no where near what we see as obvious because the routes account for the curvature of the earth else the trips would be hundreds of miles longer. Add to that magnetic deviation and you learn all of these factors do not work on a flat earth.
You can refer to my other comment. My Australia example is correct. You can travel 2000 KM, then make a 90 degree turn, then travel another 2000 KM and make a 90 degree turn and then travel another 2000 KM and end up back at the same point. It will not work. I gave the example of traveling from Sydney to Perth, then turning 90 degrees, then traveling from Perth to Broome, then turning 90 degrees, you will not end up back at Sydney. You will end up around Cairns.
So I absolutely understand your special case, If you were to start at the North Pole, go to the Equator, then turn 90 degrees, then travel along the Equator the same distance, then turn 90 degrees, then travel the same distance, then you would end up back at the North Pole. So yes, in your special case this does work. And yes there must be some distortion caused by this effect also even on smaller distances. But this turning 90 degrees twice and returning to your starting point only works if you start at one of the poles. It will work for practically any distance, as long as you start at the pole. But it won’t work if you start in any other place. At least I don’t think so.
But you have explained this special case very well. Thank you for that.
Please note MLWilliams is incorrect when he states:
“So for someone to say there is no way (rubbish) to make two 90 degree turns and end up at the starting point demonstrates they cannot think in three dimensions.”
And incorrect when he states:
“Then turn 90 degrees and proceed 1/4 th the way around the ball. Stop and turn right again. From there you are now facing north again and proceed and you will end up at the North Pole.”
He’s incorrect because no Longitudinal line ( North-South ) runs perpendicular ( 90 degrees ) to any line of Latitude ( East-West ). Therefore it is impossible to travel due South from the North Pole to the Equator turn right or left 90 degrees and follow the Equator. While all lines Latitude East-West run parallel none of the North-South lines Longitude run Parallel. Instead like spokes on a wheel lines Longitude fan out from Earth’s North Pole ever widening on a Flat Earth map. On a globe lines Longitude spread out from the center widening until they reach the Equator then converge in on themselves as they continue South until all lines Longitude meet at the South Pole.
In short MLWilliams example is impossible in concept and/or execution. If one draws a line turns 90 degrees right or left then draws another line turns again 90 degrees the same right or left respectively 90 degrees the first and last lines must be parallel. The only parallel lines on the supposed globe Earth are East-West lines Latitude and they never converge at a point.
Please let me know if I’m unclear about anything or if you discover any significant errors in my statement although I doubt if you will.
Thanks and have a great day!
Yes. You are bit confused OTL.
It doesn’t matter than the longitudinal lines fan out from a point at the North and South poles and go to the equator. MLWilliams is not correct in general but he is correct in this one very limited example, his system only works if you start at the North or South Pole and just head any direction towards the equator, you don’t have to go all the way to the equator, any latitude will do.
Say you start at the North pole and head in any direction in a straight line for a fixed distance, no matter what direction you go from the North Pole as long as you keep on going in a straight line, you are effectively going South and you will cross all the latitude lines at a 90 degree angle.
So at any point you can make a 90 degree turn and you will be then going either East or West. So if you are heading East or West then you are going along a latitude line. Then you can travel any distance actually along that latitude line, make another 90 degree turn, then you will be heading North, and of course if you are heading North you will end up back at the North Pole, your starting point.
But this is exactly the same also on a flat earth, at least in the northern part. This is about the geometry of a circle, not the geometry of a globe. It works exactly the same on a flat circle, as the flat earth people propose, and also on a globe. So it is not a way of proving or disproving the globe or flat question.
Almost everyone agrees the earth is circular. But it is either a circular plane or a circular globe. That is the question. And this will work both on a circular plain and also on a globe…
So MLWilliams is not really correct in general, but he is correct in this limited case, if you start at the North or South [if there is one] poles.
Thanks for your reply. You state:
“Then you can travel any distance actually along that latitude line, make another 90 degree turn, then you will be heading North, and of course if you are heading North you will end up back at the North Pole, your starting point.
But this is exactly the same also on a flat earth, at least in the northern part. This is about the geometry of a circle, not the geometry of a globe.”
Absolutely correct, it will work on either the Flat or Ball Earth, because in both models curved lines ( Latitude for flat Earth model ) are used. When turning from a straight longitudinal line to a Latitudinal line you do not proceed on a straight 90° course. The path turns to form a circle around the Northern center.
Furthermore, this process only appears to work when starting from the North Pole because that is the only point on Earth that can be referenced from any point on Earth, at any time, using a magnetic compass! Thus it would be the only point from which any test could be practically taken, don’t you think?
Hope this post isn’t too long. Look forward to your reply.
Have a great day!
Yes. You are correct. It only works because of the compass, you turn 90 degrees from traveling South and you are traveling due east or west, and that is a curve around the center of wherever the compass is pointing. So as you point out it is not really a triangle at all, when you turn 90 degrees you are just moving along the radius of a circle and when you turn 90 degrees again that will be North again.
It could work anywhere on a globe, because on a globe the poles are arbitrary points, they could be placed anywhere. But without the compass how would you know where your starting point was, if you didn’t start at the North Pole?
Still on a globe, in theory, you could do it anywhere, you could accept any point but you would have to be able to make latitude lines related to that point. But you would really have no way of doing that on the earth.
So overall the idea is misconceived. It is not that you are traveling in a triangle with 3 90 degree turns connected with straight lines. A triangle can not have 3 90 degree angles obviously.
It is just if you go out from the center of a circle a certain distance and travel around the latitude line or staying at the same radius from the center of the circle, then turn back 90 degrees you will be pointed back at the point where you started.
But it is not a way to prove the earth is a globe or flat, results will be the same in both cases.
On a flat plane also, you could do it from any point, if you can somehow travel out from a point a certain distance then move around in a curve, keeping the same distance from the original point, and then turn back 90 degrees you will end up back at your starting point. On a flat plane, on a globe, on anything, starting from any point.
It is obvious that many people here do not understand geometry. If you travel along an azimuth it is a STRAIGHT line. Any Boy Scout that has learned land navigation knows this. In a two dimensional geometry the rules of two dimensional flat polygons come into play, but in a sphere there are three dimensions, two horizontally and one vertically which is coordinate geometry. This is how you can make two 90 degree turns because the third 90 turn is vertically under your feet. On a flat surface you cannot make two 90 degree turns and end up at the starting point, you must make a third one. On a sphere the third turn is under your feet, two turns on the horizontal dimensions and one turn on another dimension, which makes three dimensions. If you cannot understand that simple geometrical principle then you are wasting your time arguing no matter how right you “feel” about it. Look at trans continental airline flights and ask yourself if the earth was flat, why would they fly in large arcs and not a straight line? This violates the plane geometry principle the shortest distance between two lines is a straight line. On a sphere it is the shortest route, but it looks distorted on a map because flat maps of spheres are distorted and makes the line look curved.
Hi. A triangle can not have 3 ninety degree angles. As we have discussed this is possible, if you take a central point, like the North Pole, where your compass is pointing, and start there and move out to a point, turn 90 degrees and walk east or west, means you will be walking around curve actually, and then another 90 degree turn will take you back to your starting point.
But this is not a triangle. It is walking around in a circle and going back to the central point.
So what you are doing is like a piece of a cake. You are walking out from the center to the edge and going around the edge and making a 90 degree turn to go back to the center.
And the whole idea was to prove the earth was a globe, but this works on any circle, it will work just as well on a flat plane as it does on a globe.
So I understand geometry. And I understand your point. But I think you have not explained it very completely and also it does not prove the earth is a globe. The same thing would happen on a flat plane.
If I am mistaken please let me know.
Another fact should be considered. Longitude lines all extend out from the North Pole. It doesn’t matter what angle you turn at after traveling South from said North Pole! Longitude lines can be drawn anywhere on Earth. From wherever you are on Earth if you follow your compass North you should eventually arrive at the North Pole. The entire 90 degree turn procedure proves meaningless because you are always following the compass North whatever the angle you think you may have turned is irrelevant! You would have little means to assure you followed any angular path over any significant distance without the magnetic compass that only points in one direction North!
It seems to me if MLWilliams still thinks he has a point to make he need to state what it is and some means not previously considered to prove it.
Yes, a triangle can have 90 turns in a three dimensional sphere. It appears as a simple triangle when views from above but the third dimension is vertical in that each of the three legs is actually part of a perimeter. Starting at grid north, you travel south to what we would call the equator. From above it looks like a straight line, but in reality it is a 90 degree arc. When you make a 90 degree turn ON THE SURFACE, you also travel in what appears to be a straight line horizontally, but you are also on another 90 degree arc. The way you are able to do this is because there is also a vertical turn under your feet. Take any basketball and draw it out and you see that on the surface you made two 90 degree turns and ended up at the starting point because there was also a curved surface under your feet that accounted for the third 90 degree change in direction.
Debunking the ball.
So easy, even YOU can do it!
In jets traveling 515 mph, they would have to compensate for ‘curvature of the Earth’ every few minutes to keep from going straight into space.
24 min at 204 miles and plane never once had to dip to compensate for curvature.
Proven level with tri-level during flight. If a plane does NOT EVEN ONCE nose DOWN to keep from traveling straight into space and compensate for the curve, you can bet your bottom dollar we Earth IS Flat.
When you reach cruising altitude, do they say you can take your seatbelts off because the plane is curving off? Nope! LEVELING off!
This is irrefutable proof there’s no curvature, and we don’t live on a ball.
You know what the great part about this is? You don’t even have to believe what we say. Do it yourself. Same result!
The ball is DEAD!
The Earth IS Flat!
Airplanes do constantly adjust for the curvature, if the earth is curved. Airplanes fly at a certain altitude, and they keep that altitude constant, so by adjusting to keep the distance between the plane and sea level the same, they are adjusting for the curve of the earth, if it is curved.
So this argument is bogus. It does not prove the earth is flat.
You can prove the plane NEVER dips nose for curvature using a level.
A level never lies.
IF WE WERE on a rotating ball, 360° spin in 24 hr, but but level AND gyroscope record 0 ° rotation in a day.
How do you explain this?
James, you are not thinking. Level is because of gravity. Level is perpendicular to the force of gravity. And, according to globe earth model, the force of gravity is a force drawing things to the center of the globe. So as you go around the globe your level is always going to be perpendicular to the force of gravity which is always pointing to the center of the earth… So as you fly around the globe earth your level will change. So if you follow that level you will automatically follow the curve of the earth…
If the earth would be a rotating wobbling globe, why are planes not constantly correcting for speed and apply a ‘leading’ when landing? The earth would rotate away from or rotate towards them (at different angles, depending on what direction they’re coming from and what airport/runway they’re heading to). If the answer is ‘because the earth’s atmosphere is a closed system, so the air is turning at the same speed as the rotation of the earth’, then why does the military snipers claim to compensate for the earth’s rotation at long distances? The bullet wouldn’t be affected, since it’s in the same closed system. If your answer is ‘well, the bullet is much smaller than a plane’, then why is a stack of balanced stones/pebbles not affected?
If the earth is a globe, traveling at ridiculous speeds, why did the Polestar not move an inch or less by now after all these years of travel?
If the earth is a globe, and space does exist, how do rockets, the ISS, etc move around in a vacuum?
Yes. Here you are chipping away at the delicate edges of the globe earth model. Globe earth model can not really give a satisfying answer to the questions you are raising here.
In the words of Scar, “I am surrounded by idiots.” The level of ignorance about simple geometry and even gravitational forces of matter is astounding. Altitude adjustments and recalibration of a compass must be made by planes depending on where they are located, which is part of a simple preflight checklist to verify altitude and magnetic north when on the ground at the airports. I have personally seen how magnetic north will drift based on location and how far away you are from that location. If it were flat, north would always be at the same spot, but because of the fact that north could literally be over the horizon, it makes several degrees difference base on where you are on the globe. Add to that the geometry problem everyone keeps ignoring, only on a globe can you start at a point, travel a distance half way between the top and bottom, make a 90 degree turn and travel the same distance, then make another 90 degree turn and end up at the same spot. On a flat plane you must either make three turns at 90 degree angles with four legs (square with four 90 degree turns) or two turns at 120 degrees with three legs (triangle with three 120 turns) to end up at the starting point. Try it on a piece of paper and then on a ball and see how it works. If you still don’t get it then give up because lame excuses that demonstrate no knowledge for 9th grade geometry makes the whole argument look more ridiculous than trying to capture sunlight in a jar so you can light a room at night.
Reading the first two lines of your response (and also the ending of it) – showing anyone what a condescending human being you are – doesn’t really help to get your point across. At first it made me not want to read any further, but I don’t want to pass off an opportunity to learn something new.
Your first point doesn’t make much sense to me. If that would be a problem for planes at airfields, how is that not a problem for survivalists, hikers in nature, etc all over the world? They would somehow also have to recalibrate for location, altitude and distance. But they never do; they just check their compass (maybe use some stars as well, which are – luckily – fixed and therefor a great reference for navigation).
And how would someone adjust for the ‘several degrees difference’ at his/her position? This difference would be unknown, but – for the argument’s sake – let’s suppose the adjustment for that difference on each arbitrary position is somehow a known value. To determine what specific value you need for adjustment at your position, you need your position which is derived from the same magnetic north you’re trying to correct for. This seems to be a fallacy and seems to come from a circular train of thought.
Your second argument just proves some characteristics of a ball/globe; it does not prove earth is one. It seems you’re suggesting that such tests have been done, that can be reproduced. If that is the case, please feel free to share the information; perhaps it will convince me and/or anyone else we’re indeed living on a globe. I think it would be next to impossible to perform such a test for it to be irrefutable. You would need some reference to make sure you’re still really traveling at a 90 degree angle. The only constant you would have on that scale, would be the magnetic north. With your previous statement you’re saying the magnetic north isn’t a constant and should be recalibrated. Recalibrated based on what constant? At this point we’re back at the same circular train of thought as before.
“The level of ignorance about simple geometry and even gravitational forces of matter is astounding.” You suggest geometry is a simple subject, and gravitational force is ‘even’ simpler. Quite the statement. Assuming gravity is somehow proven (which isn’t the case), none of your statements/arguments have anything to do with that supposed gravity. So, you’re just mentioning it for the sake of mentioning it? Or did you make a point regarding (proof of) gravity’s existence I’m missing?
I wish you all the best; hopefully we will come to a full understanding of what creation is all about.
Yawn. Ever hear of magnetic deviation? Adjustments have to be made if using magnetic north based on where you are in relation to magnetic north. Show us on a flat map how you can make two 90 turns and end up at the starting point. Flap your pseudo science all you want but simple geometry proves you wrong so put up or go home.
We have already done that. It works on a flat plane as well. it is not really a triangle because when you are travelling east west you are going along a latitude line, it is a curve, not a straight line.
So same thing works on a flat circle. If you go out from the center then turn 90 degrees and travel along a latitude line, means curved and then turn 90 degrees again you end up back in the center of your flat circle.
So this is not proof either way, it works both on a flat plane and on a globe.
The claim of Rahu being a possible explanation for lunar eclipses is bunk.
If it existed it would aboslutely have been detected, “dark planet ” or not.
Additionally, there’s no possible way for FE to explain blood moons, it’s clear that lunar eclipses are not causes by something going in between the earth and the moon.
Additionally, timezones are truelly impossible on a flat earth. On a flat earth everyone absolutely would bea ble to see the sun and the same time. Simple trigonemetry proves this.
If d is the distance to the Zenith and h is the height.
The the angel of the sun above the sky would be theta=arctan(h/d). There’s no way on a flat earth to get the sun to behave the way it does in reality.
Finally, about perspecitve.
When objects get further away they get smaller, this doesn’t happen to the sun in reality.
It is only because you don’t understand how it works. Rahu explanation as to the cause of eclipses is totally valid. But we don’t understand it. So when you don’t understand it you think it is bunk, but when you understand it you understand it.
Everything depends on if you understand it. So there may be some way of understanding how time zones work on a flat earth. But we don’t understand it. All we understand is the globe earth model, because that is what we have been taught. And it is a very nice model and we like to imagine our world like that. So that is all we can understand.
Still the reality may be quite different from what we understand it to be.
No, the Rahu explanation is not valid. It does not explain why a moon is Blood red during a lunar eclipse. It doesn’t make sense for that to occur.
In addition, the shadow on the moon doesn’t have a clear and distinct edge, instsead there’s a region where it gradually goes from bright to dark, that is the Earths shadows Penumbra. While in solar eclipses, there is a distinct edge, a sharp boundary.
IT’s quite clear that lunar eclipses are not cuased by an object going between the moon and the earth.
And finally if Rahu existed, then it absolutely would have been detected.
Even if it somehow reflected no light what so ever, if would still easily be detected via emitted Infra red radiation, or via it occulting stars.
And yet somehow, it never has.
Only you do not understand the Rahu explanation, but if you understood it you would see it is a perfectly logical alternative explanation for the cause of solar and lunar eclipses. Everyone is attached to what they have been taught, what they understand, what they have been brainwashed with. And if anyone suggests an alternative explanation, they will reject it, because they are attached to what they believe in.
I miss the in my eyes most important piece of evidence here. Everyone can determine her longitude with the help of Polaris (in the northern hemisphere) or the sun. Independently surveyors have measured the distance of 1° longitude difference as being (in rounded figures) 111 km,no matter where you are. If the Earth were a flat plane the fact that you see Polaris under a certain angle means that it has to be above that plane at a limited height with the same order of magnitude as your distance to the pole. But at every different longitude math will give you a different height. Same problem with the sun.
However, a spherical surface with both the sun and Polaris at very large distances compared with the distances on Earth fits perfectly with these two observations.
Yes. Very good point. The globe earth model really works very well. It is a fabulous model, and it perfectly explains how, as we move around the globe, what we see happening in the sky.
About a lunar eclipse. If Rahu were to cast it’s shadow on the moon, then what would be the light source? The sun?
We know and can measure the celestial coordinates of the sun and the moon continuously and during a lunar eclipse they are on opposite sides of the Earth. Where should I position Rahu?
At the time of the eclipse, solar or lunar, according to the Rahu model, Rahu is between the sun and the moon and earth is below. Rahu is a dark planet, we can not observe it any time except when it comes in front of the sun, causing a solar eclipse or when it comes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. So the shadow we see in the eclipse is caused by Rahu, not the earth.
The vanishing point is a theoretical concept from perspective theory, meant to be used by painters etc . , from about renaissance time. It has no physical meaning. It only means that two parallel lines converge in your picture at infinity, and sometimes painters use two or more vanishing points. Neither is it necessarily connected to the horizon. For example a picture of a very long rising stairway can be drawn by letting two lines converge to a point considerably above the horizon.
When I zoom in on a distant object, like a windmill at sea, I see the blades still rather large, but the lower part is behind the horizon. Less so when I’m standing on a dune. No “perspective” can explain that away.
The vanishing point is not a theoretical concept. Yes, painters use it, but it is their attempt to depict what we actually see with our eyes. There is a vanishing point, a point in the distance where things disappear, but that is not real. That is how we see things, but we can not see the reality.
What we see is the ground coming up as it gets further away and the sky coming down as it gets further away and at a certain point in the distance the ground and the sky meet and anything beyond that point is invisible to us. That is the reality of what we see with our eyes. But what we see with our eyes is not reality. In reality the ground is not coming up and the sky is not coming down. But we can not see reality, we see in perspective, which is not at all real.
So if we make theories and come to conclusions based on the unreal things we see with our eyes then all our conclusions and theories will be wrong…
Why hasn’t anyone found the farthest east, west, north, or south?
What do you mean? On a globe you just keep on going around it, you never reach the edges on a globe.
Why do you claim to know if anyone has or has not found the farthest east, west, north or south point?
Many ancients claimed to have reached the North pole and several made similar descriptions all at variance with modern textbook claims that there’s nothing there but ice. In fact, an early 20th century explorer claimed to reach the North pole on land!
As to the other cardinal points good luck. Captain Cook claimed to follow the southern ice wall for 70,000 miles without once retracing his steps before he finally gave up. Modern textbook and official statements claim the so-called region known as Antarctica to be a large ice-covered void of life except the emperor penguins and some leopard seals off the coast. Admiral Byrd in the 1950’s claimed there was a region as large as the US with enormous resources there and 1960’s video supposedly showed what was claimed to be hundreds of square miles of lush verdant land covered in vegetation and flora in the region. Were they all delusional?
Hi OTL. Yes. But basing your arguments on Captain Cook, who I am very sure did not sail 70,000 miles on his wind powered boat, and hearsay about Admiral Birds mission, it is not very convincing.
The problem is you are trying to poke holes in the “accepted reality”. People don’t do that. They believe it. The globe earth model, the map they have given us. The compass directions, etc.
You know people want to understand, they want a world view that is logical, that works. And globe earth model, it is logical and works and gives these science minded people, and even just general people, some world-view they feel comfortable imagining themselves in.
But you, as a flat earth person, you have no logical working model to offer. So really no logical person can accept your arguments because you have no logical arguments.
You just have a feeling there is something wrong with the generally accepted model and a feeling that the earth might be flat.
And you may well be correct. I, on the other hand, have access to an alternative model, which I am sure is a working model that works better than the globe earth model. So actually this is needed if you want to convince anyone to move away from the globe earth model. Globe earth is the only logical model, the only one that works, the only thing that these people who want to have some conception of the universe and their place in it have to hang on to. And they will not let go unless you can provide and equally valid scientific predictive model based on the earth being a flat plane.
And you, and no flat earther to date, can do this.
So it is pointless trying to convince people about something we don’t understand ourselves, that we can’t comprehend ourselves. First we have to be able to comprehend it ourselves, understand it ourselves, only then can we explain it to others.
For the time being globe earth model is the only working model. Unless you or I or someone else can present another logical working model then the analytical types who want to understand how things work, or how things could work, they only have one logical choice, and that is the globe earth model.
However, I am quite sure actually, that the globe earth model is completely incorrect, and I have got a lot of the correct pieces, but really I can not assemble all the pieces in a coherent logical way at the moment.
So I, like you, can not really present it in a logical coherent way at the moment, so I don’t try. Before we can explain something we have to be able to conceive how it works ourselves.
I can give some hints:
– Flat earth map is wrong. It is not that the North is in the center and the south is outside. No. North and south are both on the outside of the circle. So there is land in the center surrounded by a salt water ocean then surrounded by an ice wall, which is actually the beginning of the next “island” or land. And there are people living out there actually, on the next island on the same plane as we are existing separated by the salt water ocean…
– It is not that we are on a blue globe floating in space lightyears away from any other planet where there is intelligent life. No. Not at all. There are layers of ‘planets’ below us where there is intelligent life and there are ‘rings’ of planets around us on the same plane. We are in the center of a closed system and the whole system is only 4 billion miles across. So anything we see in the sky, nothing is more than 2 billion miles away. But there are mirrors. So there are projections and reflections. What we see in the sky is not actually where we are seeing it.
– The whole sky we see above us is a projection. It is projected from a structure in the center that we can not see. There is a relatively small structure with all the stars in their fixed places and with the planets and sun and moon moving around on it so they move from one constellation to another.
– This ‘projector’ or structure in the center, it has two rotations. It rotates once every 24 hours and also it has a different movement that tilts the whole thing either to the north or the south or in the center at the equinoxes, this is a yearly cycle. So for half of the year the structure, the “projector”, it is titled towards the northern side and the other half of the year it is titled to the southern side.
– These two rotations of the projector combined with the projection screens and the mirrors on the ‘dome’ provide the illusion that we are on a rotating globe. But actually we are not on a rotating globe. That is an illusion, we are seeing a simulation of what we would expect to see from a rotating globe projected on a dome above from this relatively small structure or projector that we can’t see in the middle.
– It is the movement of the projector, this structure in the middle, that produces what we see in the sky. We are actually stationary, on a plane, looking up at this projection that simulates what we would see from a globe floating in space.
– It may well be designed like this to make us think we are on a globe floating in space light years away from everyone else… Because if we think that we will not try to get out of our prison.
– But actually, within 100’s of thousands of miles in any direction, on the plane, below the plane and above the plane, if we were to travel we would find other inhabited lands.
– There is only one sun in our universe.
– Everything we see in the sky is within our universe. We can not see other universes.
– The stars are not other suns. The stars are all like the moon. They all reflect the light of the sun.
– We can only see the things in the universe that are in our field of view and that are illuminated. Meaning we can only see such a tiny, tiny fraction of what is out there.
So this is the reality, I know, but if anyone else is to know, then we have to be able to actually explain it in scientific terms, in a way that works.
So anyhow a very basic starting point would be to get the map correct.
And the correct map is NOT the currently accepted flat earth map.
The correct map is with North as 180 degrees of the outer ice wall and south as 180 degrees of the outer ice wall. So we are living like on a donought. There is hidden land in the center and North is one half of the donought and South is the other half.
Somehow we are fooled by the compass directions and somehow we are able to map this donought onto a globe…
Exactly how it all fits together and works I can not comprehend. But I think these points are correct. Generally I don’t talk about it because I can’t comprehend it fully and can’t explain it…
I’m sorry but this isn’t correct at all.]
The 70,000 miles figure is the total distance of his voyage.
Your Byrd quote was also misinterpreted.