## 200 Proof: Ball Earth is not a Hill

Most of this proof is answered in my last post Water Flows Downward. In fact, the proof is pretty much identical to the last one, except the author just picks out downhill water flow specifically and saves the other points about the movement of Earth to discuss again later.

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.”

There are two problems with the statement. The first is easily understood by anyone who has ridden a roller coaster. If something rolls down a hill fast enough, it can go up another hill.

After going up a very large hill, building up potential energy, the roller coaster occupant then goes through a series of ups and downs until the potential energy is lost to friction with the track.

More importantly, the author does not understand gravity. Here is the water cycle:

Energy from the sun heats up and evaporates water which is able to climb in the atmosphere. Once released as rain, it hits mountains, hills, or even slightly inclined plains and flows downhill toward a body of water. Because gravity is pulling toward the center of the planet no matter which area of the ball Earth rain hits, water will flow downhill from a position of higher elevation to a position of lower elevation. Meaning each of these representations works the same way:

People on the southern half of the ball Earth are not falling off because of the effects of gravity. Up and down is relative to where you are standing. So while rivers may go uphill if there is enough energy built up from a steep downhill; rivers in general travel from a point of higher elevation to a point of lower elevation no matter which side of the ball Earth they are on.

## 200 Proof: Water Flows Downward

I apologize in advance, but this is going to take a little bit of basic physics to understand the flaw.

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

What the author is attempting to convey is that if the surface of the Earth is convex, then traveling around the surface would be akin to walking up hill.

Remember first that gravity is always pointing perpendicular to the surface of the Earth with roughly the same force (a little less when at higher elevation, a little more when at lower elevation, but within an imperceptible difference to people).

Forces are what cause water (or anything) to accelerate (or decelerate). Remember:

acceleration = Force ÷ mass

So the bigger a force is, the more acceleration it will provide an object, and the more massive an object is, the more force it will require to cause acceleration (inertia = an object at rest stays at rest or things don’t accelerate without force).

Since gravity is perpendicular to the surface of ball Earth, it will not make movement along the surface any easier or harder. Force or energy is required to bring something up to a higher level from the surface. This builds up something called Potential Energy. This potential energy lets things fall back to the ground from a height (or slide down a ramp or any other sloped incline like a river).

The same thing happens to cause rain where heat adds energy to water leading to evaporation and movement to a higher level of the atmosphere. Once the energy dissipates and the water cools to a liquid, the potential energy in the water is converted to kinetic energy and the water falls to ball Earth.

Even on a ball Earth, water still goes downhill.

## 200 Proof: Water is Level

One of the best things about water is that when I put it in a cup, it stays there. It doesn’t just go sloshing around. Same thing for lakes and ponds. The surface is flat. So the Earth is flat:

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.”

I have already explained why on a small scale the Earth looks flat to the unaided eye (including land and water), and you can see how curved the oceans look only from very far away:

Okay, so what’s the deal with water not just running down the curved surface of the Earth like it would a hill? Wouldn’t the water just roll down the tilt?

To understand this, you need to understand gravity, since that is what keeps things attached to a planet. Water is acted on by gravity to keep it level around the surface of the ball Earth. That means that water is the same distance from the center of Earth’s mass when in a container (cup, lake, or swimming pool). To have water pour off the bottom half of Earth would take as much energy as to launch it up into space with a rocket.

The wobbling and hurdling really do not contribute to any movement of water either. The water is also hurdling and wobbling with the Earth. Since people, Earth, and water all wobble the same, then it is unnoticeable. It is like driving in a car on a highway with no other cars around and a nice straight path. The only thing an occupant of the vehicle will notice is that it is not difficult to drink water or do anything he would while not moving. As soon as the car accelerates (slams on the break, presses the accelerator, turns relatively sharply, hits a bump in the road, or goes up/down a hill), the occupant will feel that acceleration. The same thing happens on an airplane traveling at 100s of miles per hour without turbulence. Two people could play a game of catch throwing a ball forward and backward on the airplane as if they were not moving. Again, since people move with the Earth, there is no difference in movement to perceive for people or water.

The other time movement might seem to matter is when the occupants of a vehicle open the window. Air rushes in and blows everything around. So shouldn’t the movement of Earth push the water around? It would if there were anything to push against as it orbits the sun. Most of the space is empty (it ends up amounting to about 50,000 tonnes per year crashing into Earth-not a lot on a planetary scale). Opening windows in a vacuum would have no rushing in of air. Most of the air on the planet is held in place by gravity. Still some escapes because it is not strongly enough attracted to the Earth’s gravitational pull (Hydrogen and Helium). This rushing out of air into the vacuum of space is too small and far away from the surface of the water to cause any effect.

## 200 Proof: Falling Horizons

Have you ever noticed that the horizon doesn’t seem to fall? It is always at eye level. Even when you are on an airplane. Flat Earthers have noticed:

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

I see it as proof of one thing only. No flat Earther has gone far enough away to see the horizon fall below eye level.

Why would a horizon stay at eye level anyway? If the Earth is indeed flat, or even a concave lense, if an observer travels high enough it will eventually appear flat:

This is the same with a flat disc of limited dimensions too. Eventually you have to look down to see the edge:

The horizon only stays level with the eye forever in the case of an infinite plane. For small distances of about 300 miles of viewing radius, the ball Earth actually behaves in just this way.

Eventually, a person can get far enough away from a planet that it will look like a circle, and he will have to look down (toward Earth) to see the horizon. Even if a person does not want to leave the comfort of his back yard or has a fear of flying, there is another way to see what this is like. With a telescope, he can look at any of the other planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn from Hubble but viewable with a good scope):

Without a scope, a person really needs to get about 8 miles up to start to visibly appreciate the horizon descend (much earlier than it would if the earth were flat).

## 200 Proof: The Curved Horizon

1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

I of course shared a picture from the international Space Station of the Mediterranean Sea. The International Space Station is a modern marvel that orbits the earth at 250 miles above the oceans. The flat Earthers like to claim that it is a fake, but they do make pretty convincing photos, and an amateur astronomer can see it with a telescope. If the photos of Earth from Earth are fake, I would ask where are the pictures of a flat Earth? I have yet to see one photo. Flat Earth sites have only drawings and paintings.

Even with overwhelming photographic evidence, there is the concern that the horizon does not appear to curve. The truth is the Earth is an enormous ball with a circumference that is 24,000+ miles. To drive around the Earth in a car going 100 miles an hour would take 10 days along any of the great circles (even traveling North/South). Because of the large nature size of Earth, the curve is almost imperceptible.

In order to perceive the curved horizon, two conditions are required. (1) The horizon must be unobscured with sufficient field of view. No trees or mountains in the way and more field of view than out of a small port window. (2) The observer most be sufficiently high enough to see enough of Earth that a curve would be expected.

For an understanding of this, imagine an near infinite spherical planet. In order to be so large, the curve of the planet would have to approach a straight line. To demonstrate this in another way look at the following circles and notice the sharper curve in the smaller circles:

Each of the black lines is a circle–even the largest blue one in the farthest background. This image was built in PowerPoint using circles of the following diameters: 0.25″, 0.5″, 1″, 2″, 3″, 4″, 5″, 6.5″, 7.4″, 50″, and 200″. It is difficult to see the curve in the 200″ circle, because it has less curve than the smaller circles. Now imagine a circle with a 2.5 million times bigger than that largest circle (diameter of 8,000 miles). It would be very flat. In fact it would have so little curve, that at small scales of about 300 miles you could use the horizon to approximate a straight line.

The higher elevation an observer is, the more of a sphere he will see. This is why am observer sees further away as he started out the window of an airplane climbing to altitude.

From Mount Everest (5.5 miles of elevation), an observer can only see 300 miles away. Below is a scale drawing of a spherical planet with diameter 7,900 miles. The small circle on the right is the 300 mile viewing radius an observer would see if Mount Everest were surrounded by an ocean (in fact it is surrounded by other mountains that obstruct the horizon). Even with an unobstructed horizon, when zoomed in, this is very flat looking::

From an airplane flying at the highest altitude used by a Concorde (no longer in service), an observer would only just begin to see the curved horizon (without clouds in the way and as much view as possible pressed against the window glass). This is the scale of a plane flying 7.7 miles elevation with a 350 mile viewing radius:

From the International Space Station, astronauts (and cosmonauts) can see in any direction 2000 miles from their 250 mile high perch. It is difficult not to notice the curvature from this height:

The photos flat Earthers really like are the ones cropped in some way that show how flat the Earth is from the International Space Station. Unfortunately, cropping out part of the view will just show what would be seen at a lower elevation:

Or these 3 photos of flat earth from the ISS:

It isn’t difficult to do this with a globe either. This is a photo of a globe taken with my cell phone with the camera as close to the globe as I could get it:

Where is the curve in the horizon? It is everywhere.

## 200 Proofs Earth is not a Stationary Disc

Probably the most cited publication in the flat Earth groups is 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. Really there are not 200 different proofs. Several of the proofs are essentially repeats. However, it is where Bobby Ray copied information to his Twitter account.

I would like to create a series of posts called 200 Proof. They will be shorter posts that will address the specific points in the flat Earth rag one by one. One day I may even go to Bedford and do famous test.

## Definitely a Spinning Ball

Living on a spinning ball, orbiting a huge explosion just far enough away to keep us warm and not fry our faces off is one of the best things ever. Unfortunately, flat earthers don’t even think the earth rotates. They just don’t appreciate a good thing.

Today’s article is a bit less focused than the gravity article. The author is looking for multiple ways to disprove everything that would involve a spinning ball hurtling around an energy ball. What I recognize first and foremost is a lack of clarity on how to disprove or prove something.

The scientific method has been honed over at least 100s of years to prove and disprove things. The idea involves asking a question. A good question has some way to find an answer. For example, this morning I wondered will I have any gum in my car? I tested it by opening the container of gum in my car and counting two pieces. This was a verifiable experiment that had the same result each time tested until I ate both pieces. The author is looking for a way to disprove the ball Earth and prove a flat Earth, but he goes about it in a way that would often be unable to produce this result.

To best test the truth of a ball Earth or a flat Earth, a person should imagine everything proposed by each theory is true. This will allow the ability to devise great tests of the theories. There are essentially four possible results of a test: (1) both ball and flat Earths are supported, (2) only ball Earth is supported, (3) only ball Earth is supported, and (4) neither flat or ball Earth are supported.

If the 4th option were true it would mean a brand new theory…like Earth is on the inside of a sphere and if you jump high enough, you will land on the other side of the planet.

So in devising tests we will really only think of the first three possibilities. Many things will probably support ball and flat Earth theory at the same time. For example, sun rays warm the Earth in both models. These tests would really not do anything to distinguish between the two competing theories. Better tests would have unexplained findings in one type of world only. Unfortunately, today’s article seems to spend a lot of time arguing the points that would exist in both. Ball Earthers have come to the conclusion Earth is a ball because of unexplained phenomenon in the flat Earth model.

Additionally, the ball Earthers have spent billions to explore the ball Earth and take pictures from space demonstrating the ball shape. Flat Earthers do not seem interested in believing this evidence or investing their money to explore the Earth’s southern pole or take a picture of Earth from 100s of miles up.

First up, the author discusses circumnavigation.

One of the easiest proofs of the spinning ball theory of the shape of Earth is the ability to circumnavigate the globe in any direction. Even flat earth proponents believe you can travel in east and west directions unhindered. They will point out that no one has ever circumnavigated the globe in a north south direction; even though they have crossed the poles (north and south). The poles have even been circumnavigated.

In the flat earth article, the author then describes how to draw a circle with a string proving the earth is flat. The same demonstration could be performed on a beach ball, a cone, or cylinder and still produce a circle that comes back to itself. The fact that East and West travel can be performed does not distinguish ball Earth from flat Earth. All of the known experiments have demonstrated ability to cross the North and South poles.

Even if the flat Earthers are skeptical. They could devise a simple experiment to drive a boat from Cape Hope to Cape Good Horn. In the ball Earth model this is a distance of 6,600km. In a flat Earth model, this should be significantly larger distance. They could also walk to the magnetic South Pole.

Next, “The ball-Earther’s logical argument is that only a globe can be circumnavigated, the Earth has been circumnavigated, and therefore the Earth is a globe.

That is not the official stance of the Ball Earth Society. Any 3 dimensional object could be circumnavigated including a dodecahedron. A sphere does nicely allow an explorer to travel in any direction and end up back where he started without a sharp turn. The flat earth idea that you cannot go north and south is disproved. It is on the flat earth society to prove that a wall of ice exists at the edge.

Next, “ Another similarly logical but unsound argument ball-Earther’s make is that only on a globe would one gain or lose time when sailing/flying East or West, time is gained or lost when sailing/flying East or West, and therefore the Earth is a globe.

Moving east or west would work this way on a sphere. It is well established to work this way. It is again on the flat Earther to provide the evidence that prevents a sphere from making sense. Otherwise, these two arguments amount to saying: flat earth supporters make the argument that the ground is firm, and that because a firm ground would be present on a flat Earth plane, that the Earth is a plane and no other object could produce this result, when in fact other shapes could have firm ground.

The difference is ball Earthers first proved that the world is a ball then made provable observations about travel and time zones. These facts confirmed the prior observations. Flat earthers start off with a flat earth and then shape the evidence as best they can to try to make sense.

The flat Earthers attempt to replace the sun with a bright spot light that only illuminates a small portion of the planet at a time and moves north and south to vary the seasons. In doing so they create a sun and moon that do not behave the way they should. Most of this is demonstrated in this well done video:

The sun and moon would be visible all of the time. Even if the sun is shining in a different area, you would see the light coming out of it like you do when you see a spotlight on a stage pointed away from you. Because the Earth is a plane and the sun is 3000 miles above the ground, the sun would never approach the horizon. Even if the sun was 24,000 miles away, an observer would still need to look up to see the sun.

Another problem created by the distorted geography particularly in the southern hemisphere, is distances become very large. In fact, time zones are much larger at the southern pole. In reality, this does not happen.

Next, “Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon.

You can search YouTube for any number of these. Even the Flat Earth ones tend to be convincing that ships are sinking over the horizon and not disappearing to a point. In general they will talk about a lot of vertical perspective leading to the hull getting smaller, but fail to explain why the width does not get proportionally smaller or why the sail doesn’t also shrink in this example. Next time I am at the beach I will record the phenomenon in better resolution for myself.

Next, “the fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence.  For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks.  Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs.  The same happens with cars speeding away, the axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car is gliding along its body.  Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

This isn’t how perspective works. Everything gets smaller the same at distance. Feet do not disappear because of perspective. If a girl walks away, her legs will shrink proportional to the rest of her body. Her legs will not just disappear and leave her with a torso moving about. The reason legs or boat hulls disappear is because they are passing over the horizon. If the horizon is not the cause of “invisible legs,” then you could see the same effect on objects high in the sky. For example, the lower half of airplanes would disappear. If the world is indeed flat, then there is no Earth to obstruct vision. If there is no Earth to obstruct vision, a flat Earther could see as far as the atmosphere’s clarity allowed (eventually, the combine dust floating around would obstruct the view.

Next, “Ball-Earthers will often quip that “if the Earth were flat, then we could see all over it!” but this is of course ignorant and inaccurate.

Not quite. I think we have found common ground!

Well…until you said this: “If you stand on the beach, a plain or prairie, you will find the horizon extends about three to six miles around you depending on the weather and your eyesight.  The range of the human eye, our field of vision is from 110 to 1 degree, and the smallest angle under which an object can still be seen is 1/60 of 1 degree, so that when an object is 3000 times its own diameter away from an observer, it will cease to be visible.  So for example, the farthest distance at which one can see a 1 inch diameter penny, is 3000 inches, or 250 feet.  Therefore, if a ship’s hull is 10 feet above the water, it will disappear from the unaided eye at 3000 times 10 feet, or 6 miles.  This has nothing to do with the supposed “convexity” or “curvature” of the Earth and everything to do with the common Law of Perspective.

This means that the horizon is in fact variable. Not even to quibble at the fact that pennies don’t have a diameter of 1 inch (0.75 inches in fact). The six mile horizon seems to be answered, but what about 20 ft tall ships? If the horizon is caused by perspective alone, why does everything disappear at the same location?

Additionally, if the world is flat, higher elevation would decrease an observer’s field of view. Since a ship is viewable only to 6 miles, climbing a hill to see further would in fact move the observer further away and make the horizon seem to move closer. In my own experience, climbing a great height like a mountain, increases the field of view significantly.

I am interested to see where this goes: “In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation. Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory.  The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses.

After some words: “To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much.  Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.””

I believe the Foucalt’s pendulum should spin differently depending on where it is located. Because of the eastward rotation of the Earth, at the North Pole the pendulum would spin clockwise; at the South Pole–counterclockwise. At the equator there would be no rotation. In fact, this is proof that the Earth spins. This is also why hurricanes spin clockwise south of the equator and counterclockwise north of the equator (same with water rotating going down a drain).

And then the real meat of the argument: “The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other.  The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.  If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion!  If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

The initial force provides movement which can be examined. Without force the same thing could be evaluated, but it would be harder. The initial force puts the pendulum in motion. The ball and socket joint does not promote circular motion, but it does allow it. Facilitating circular motion is not the same as causing circular motion. A stair facilitates vertical motion, but anyone who has climbed stairs knows that they do not cause vertical motion.

In fact it should make sense that if the Earth is a spinning ball, at the North pole a swinging pendulum that is allowed to rotate will rotate once a day. In fact if you had a frictionless surface, a ball would rotate once a day at the pole. A frictionless surface does not exist. But a pendulum can demonstrate the same thing. The Earth is not causing the pendulum to spin. The pendulum appears to spin, but it is the earth spinning and the pendulum just looks like it. At the North pole, the observer spins around the pendulum resulting in it appearing to rotate. Away from the poles, the effect is lessened so that it takes longer than a day to rotate until reaching the equator, where it does not rotate at all. So Earth’s rotation does not cause diurnal rotation outside of the two geographic poles. Since the Earth does nothing to accelerate the pendulum while it is swinging, it would not accelerate a stationary pendulum either.

I apologize for foreshadowing the Coriolis effect, but it is time: “The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth.

Yes, I’m sure there are possible exceptions, but this is something that happens so commonly you can’t just say that it is caused by wind or some other error.

“Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind?

Well you got me there. I don’t understand how flat Earthers believe in the centrifugal force (force perpendicular to axis of rotation that is seen on merry-go-rounds) but not the Coriolis force (planar rotation caused by being on a rotating surface). This is the biggest problem with flat Earth theories–they only think some of the laws of physics are true, even when to forces are closely related.

What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?

The aether has never been measured and is now a rejected and outdated theory. In fact the mentioned experiment was designed to test the effect of the aether on the direction of light as the Earth moved through the aether while rotating on its axis. The thought was the velocity of light would change when passing through the aether. It did not. This experiment rejected the idea of the aether.

The follow up experiment measured the angular momentum of Earth.

I am not sure how mentioning this experiment benefits the flat Earth argument.

Of course not every storm, weather pattern, or flushed toilet spins correctly because there are other factors and forces at play. But I will address this question: “And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently?