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, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.
I would share that it is available for free and searchable. I cannot find any passage chronicling their distances being off from the charts. Without an actual citation, I would have to call this proof a bold faced lie. Additionally, it is worth noting that James Clark Ross assumed a round planet and managed to explore the Antarctic and return to write about it.
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.
I thought proof number 34 was that captains use a flat Earth model to avoid this problem. I guess the author is referring to the stubborn few that ignore the flat Earth model.
I don’t really know what to search for regarding this. While it would be nice to see if there are in fact more shipwrecks in the southern hemisphere versus the northern hemisphere, I don’t think this would indicate anything. The land mass in the northern hemisphere is larger and populations/technology were different in the two areas. I cannot find any information about a rash of southern hemisphere shipwrecks.
The fact is the south pole is a point is really just best tested by going there. While one could argue that a vast conspiracy exists to convince us that the Earth is globe and that the south pole is a long ice wall. They have at least made the effort to make expeditions to the south pole.
I might be more inclined to change my opinion if there were images of Earth from space demonstrating a flat disc or an expedition to the other side of the ice shelf, but none exists. Ships and navigational systems factor in a globe shaped planet when mapping out trips. It works the same for planes.
34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.
I think the easiest way to dispel this would just be to ask a ship captain. But people don’t trust the media anymore.
I believe this is because charts and maps are often flat pieces of paper. So in one sense ship captains might use a flat surface to plot out a trip. And we have seen that if you are looking at a relatively small scale that it doesn’t matter. A flat map is basically the same as a globe when you zoom in very close to something like a state or a country.
I would be interested in what technology the author thinks is not related to a spherical Earth. Here is a historical description of navigational technology employed by captains.
Step 1: Navigating by maintaining visual queues from the shore line. That is not really using any flat or round earth technology. Just maintaining a visual.
Step 2: Determining speed and time at sea. Both technologies would work on flat or round planets. Nothing to distinguish here.
At this point sailors started losing site of landand needed to more accurately determine their coordinates.
Step 3: Latitude and longitude. These are determined by the relative position of the starts. Some stars (polaris) remain in a fixed position in the sky and can be used to triangulate the latitude. The other stars will change position and by studying star charts and knowing what time of day it is, you can determine longitude. This technology only works on a ball planet.
Polaris on a Globe (Left) and Disc (Right)
Polaris (the North Pole Star) is only visible in the northern hemisphere. It rests essentially straight up at the north pole. Determining the angle Polaris is from the horizon allows sailors to determine their latitude. Once they sail to the southern hemisphere, Polaris disappears and sailors use other stars for navigation.
If we were on a disc planet, Polaris would always be visible. Incidentally, it could be used to determine latitude still. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works.
Step 3: Radio, Modern Computers, and GPS all factor in a curved Earth.
It is unclear which sailors are not using a round Earth in navigation. I can only assume the author is thinking about the last time he went to the lake and rented a jet ski.
This #33 proof is almost difficult to comprehend. My understanding of this is:
If gravity is able to hold liquid against the surface of the Earth, how is water liquid?
I’m going to focus mostly on this aspect of it. As to why the oceans are pulled into a curve around the surface of the earth, one of the following pictures representing two configurations of water on Earth would be stable, and the other would move to match the other.
Regarding the idea that fish couldn’t swim in the water if gravity was holding the liquid in place. That is absolutely true if gravity is strong enough. Water can be a solid (ice), a liquid (water), or a gas (water vapor). The phase is determined by temperature and pressure. When water is a liquid, things can swim through it. That is just a property of liquid. I am not familiar with a state where water becomes a sludge preventing fish locomotion without adding something to it to increase its viscosity.
Temperature is easy to see the effect of. If I put water in my freezer it becomes impossible for fish to swim through it.
Pressure we see less commonly. For the most part, pressure on Earth is atmospheric pressure, unless you go really deep in the oceans. Then you have all of the weight of the air and water pressing on you. In the deepest parts of the oceans, the water pressure is 110,000,000 kPa, or 110 MPa. This still isn’t enough to force water to become solid. That won’t happen until pressure is around 10 times this amount of pressure.
For completeness, the oceans are salt water, so this curve changes. Salt makes water freeze at a lower temperature than distilled water. Even so, if gravitational force increased significantly, like if Earth was more massive than it is, fish wouldn’t be able to swim through water, because it would become ice.
Gravity is of course both very familiar and strange. Fortunately, understanding the familiar parts of gravity is all that is needed for this little bit.
32) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.
There are a couple of pieces to unravel here. First of all, the force of gravity between two objects is described by the equation:
Force of Gravity = (Gravitational Constant) * (Mass 1) * (Mass 2) / (Distance)^2
On Earth’s surface that simplifies out to:
Force = 9.8 m/s^2 * mass of object
The gravitational force exerted on an object is proportional to the mass of that object. So gravitational force between a building and Earth is going to be greater than a building and a bird. You can feel this difference when you try to throw a tennis ball up from the ground compared to a bowling ball. One has more mass and therefore more gravitational force to overcome.
I have been struggling to publish anything on here for awhile. I think I have just come around to the idea of a flat earth and was embarrassed. But also, just busy and a lot of these proofs are just redundant. I will try to power through though.
“Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? 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. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”
This isn’t the first time that the proofs have repeated the same tired idea. Gravity is a force between any two objects with mass. Gravitational pull between any two objects with mass exists. Air has mass. Air is pulled down against the ground or other air. When two objects are pressed together, the friction between the two objects will create another force to pull the two objects along together. In the case of a spinning earth and air, the air pulls along the earth because of this friction force. Since the earth and the air are moving at the same velocity, it would make sense not to notice 1,000mph winds.
This was discussed in proofs 28 and 29. If not in others, but it has been 5 years since I posted.
I apologize for my long time off. Unfortunately, I have a job, a family, and hobbies account for much of my time. If it wasn’t for a recent comment by anotherguy, I would probably have been longer away. Shall we resume?
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--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers…”
First, I am unable to find the listed reference to review the original text. It is a fact that Sir Ross was an explorer of the poles and did venture to the antarctic in 1839.
Second, air obeys the laws of fluid dynamics. The density of air decreases at higher altitudes in both the flat earth and ball earth theories. I’m not quite sure why only a flat earth would allow different layers of fluid to move relative to one another, but this seems to be the point of proof #30. Wind is air movement and is caused by heating and cooling in the most simplistic terms. Air in one place is warmed and rises. Air in another place is cooled and falls. The cold falling air moves toward the areas of heated air, rises, and creates a circuit. In general, this would cause the wind on the ground to move in different directions than the ground. However, in the real ball world, there are many more variables at play, creating all of the weather features we know.
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, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.
Interestingly, people have measured the rotation of the Earth from the surface of the Earth. If the author was interested in doing so, he could cheaply do so with a Foucault Pendulum.
The author envisions that the Earth moving at 1000 mph would be the same as a convertible moving at 1000 mph. First of all, the atmosphere close to the Earth moves along with the Earth. Second of all, the situation the author describes is a train moving 2000 mph on a surface moving at 1000 mph.
The author assumes that the air would not be moving with the Earth. Because of gravity and friction, the atmosphere in general moves with the Earth near Earth’s surface. This is no different than a previous proof.
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.
This is the same relative velocity argument that has been addressed several times (once, twice, thrice). The author likes to switch the reference frame when it is convenient for his argument. Switching the argument invalidates the argument though.
ball earth blog 