200 Proof: Stars are Unimaginely Far Away

19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

The closest star system to ball Earth is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.367 light years away (2.572 × 1013 miles).  That is 25,720,000,000 miles. If you draw Earth’s orbit (distance from sun is about 150,000,000 miles) and these two triangles it would look like this (green is summer and orange is winter):

proof19-perpendicular orbit

Now in this scenario, an observer might be able to measure a difference in parallax. However, this is the best case scenario with the closest star assumed to be perpendicular to the orbit of Earth.

There is no reason to expect the stars to seem to move. They do of course, but because of the distances, the visible change is minimal. It is possible to measure this difference, and it has been performed since 1672.

Additionally, the stars do change since the night sky is different depending on the season. Here are pictures of the how the big dipper and other constellations change by location and with different times of the year.

200 Proof: There is No Ether At All

One of the most interesting concepts is that light cannot accelerate. Light cannot change direction. Light always moves at the exact same velocity.

18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.

These experiments hoped to show that the ether (please see my prior post about George Biddell Airy) caused some relative difference in the speed of light. Imagine the Earth spinning around the sun and on its axis. It was thought that the speed of light would be change because of this relative motion.


They were unable to measure any relative difference in the speed of light with respect to the ether. Light moved at the same velocity whether it was dawn or dusk and regardless of the time of year. This resulted in the final proof that the ether did not exist. Ultimately, this led to the theory of relativity.

Before jumping to the incorrect conclusion that light does not change velocity because the Earth is not moving like the author, there are two points to consider. Light does not change velocity when measured in a lab; and if the sun was moving over the surface of the Earth, a relative difference in the speed of light would still be expected, unless light did not accelerate.

Later on I may talk some about the theory of general relativity which is one of the most amazing theories of all time.

200 Proof: Light is Dimmer from Far Away

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.


I would like to offer the example of a light bulb. If the light bulb is on, and someone looks at it from across the room, it will appear dimmer than if the light bulb is inches away from the eyeball.

In fact, a certain number of photons have to hit the human eye’s photosensors to even register as visible. I believe this number is 3, but I may be wrong. Regardless of the precise number, light can fail to be perceived for a number of possible reasons.

Reason 1: The light source is too dim to be registered as visible given the distance of the light source (this is why telescopes will point at the same section of sky for hours trying to absorb as much light from the dark sections of sky to identify very distant stars).


Reason 2: The light source is blocked out by something more bright (like how stars disappear with the bright sun present).

proof17-bright light

Reason 3: The light source is blocked out by something dark (inluding dust, people in movie theaters standing up, and my dog).

proof17-dark block

Reason 4: The light source is too far away to have reached the observer given the time since it was created.


So there are a lot of reasons that light does not get seen. The idea that all of these dim lights might add up to a bright light all of the time is like trying to figure out how many laser pointers it would take to make a light bright enough to shine on the moon.

Even so, none of this has anything to do with the Earth being a spinning ball or moving around the sun. If you buy the short age of the universe, you can only see 3000 light years away, so you can easily explain Obler’s Paradox.

200 Proof: There is no “ether” drag

A very long time ago, scientists had already accepted that the Earth was a ball and was orbiting the sun. Even so, scientists did not really understand how light worked. On very popular thought around 100 years ago revolved around the discovery that light behaved as a wave. There understanding of a wave was that it involved transmission of energy through a medium (think a sound wave traveling through air). Unfortunately, it was found that there was a vacuum between the Earth and sun. In order to explain how light got to Earth scientists invented the ether (sometimes aether); which was a mysterious, unmeasurable medium that light was conducted through.

Scientists then set out to try and find out what this ether was like. A very important question was: is the ether moving or stationary relative to Earth. Some thought that the ether would be “dragged” by massive objects; others thought that the ether was completely stationary to massive objects.

With this in mind, George Biddell Airy set about trying to measure ether drag (actual publication if you are interested circa 1871). Now with this background, our next proof of flat Earth can be viewed appropriately:

“16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.

Aberration of light refers to the apparent motion of stars in the night sky. Essentially, if you point a telescope at a star and wait a couple of seconds or minutes, the star will move out of the field of view. It is related to the movement of Earth traveling around the sun and rotating on its axis. James Bradley used this phenomenon of aberration and the speed of the Earth’s orbit around the sun to very accurately prove the finite speed of light within great accuracy to modern measurements in 1728.

At a time when people thought there was ether for light to move through, the movement of the ether could have serious implications for where something like the aberration of light for stars If there was ether moving through space, it could be effect the aberration of light.

It can be understood that Airy was not measuring the movement of stars relative to Earth’s movement. His experiment would not be able to distinguish between if the stars were moving relative to Earth or Earth relative to stars. His experiment involved placing a refracting medium (what causes light to “bend” so an observer may be able to see a greater distance around the curvature of the Earth) inside a telescope and looking at stars to see if this caused the aberration of light from stars to change because of the translational movement of Earth.

Direct quote: “A discussion has taken place…on the change of direction which a ray of light will receive when it traverses a refracting medium which has a motion of translation. The subject to which attention is particularly called is the effect that will be produced on the apparent amount of that angular displacement of a star or planet which is caused by the Earth’s motion of translation, and is known as the Aberration of Light.”

So, Mr. Airy clearly believes the Earth is moving.


If the star and scope are at rest relative to the ether, light moves in a straight line:

proof16-no ether movement

If, however, the ether were moving in some way it would cause light to move with the ether (like how sound waves move with the wind). In this case it would look like (where the dashed star is the perceived position of the star by the observer):

proof16-ether movement

Airy put water in the scope to increase the effect of the ether drag so that it might be measurably different than in air. There was no change. Airy demonstrated that ether drag does not exist and the prior measurements of aberration are valid in demonstrating the movement of Earth around the sun and the speed of light.


200 Proof: Airplanes Fly Parallel to Earth

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.


This is quite a silly concept to me. Remember that gravity is a force that acts on every object perpendicular to the surface of Earth. Please see my discussion on gravity for more detailed discussion.

Essentially, there are two issues. First, if a airplane is moving with a certain velocity forward and no additional lift; gravity will change the direction of velocity:


The problem with the author’s supposition is that too much energy would be required. Energy is required to move away from the Earth. Elevation is determined by position from the center of ball Earth, not where an object starts. If a plane noses down continually, it will crash into the ground.

200 Proof: Sight at a Distance

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

The referenced experiment was measuring the distance from Kippure (2,484 ft) to the peak of Precelley (greatest height of 1,759 feet). Using the same method in my prior post, you can calculate that the distance of vision would be up to 112 miles and within the measured findings.

200 Proof: Long Distance are Visible

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

Interestingly, the Free Masons are responsible for the ball Earth conspiracy and yet the flat Earthers cite the work of 19th century scientist and Free Mason, Francois Arago.

Francois Arago was involved in a project with Jean-Baptiste Biot to complete the meridian arc measurements started by JBJ Delambre. I believe this is the study referenced, since it placed him in the mountains of Spain. I cannot find the specifics published on how his research was conducted. I did find this book: The Shadow of Enlightenment: Optical and Political Transparency in France.


The two were trying to measure the length of the ball Earth’s meridian to establish the size of a meter which was defined as one ten millionth of a quarter of the Earth’s meridian. To do this, Arago positioned himself on one of the peaks of Desierto de las Palmas (presumably on Bartolo peak which would afford the greatest view from 2391 ft). Biot then traveled along to other areas trying to obtain the highest elevation he could. They then lit fires, amplified the light with mirrors, and used a Borda repeating circle to measure angles between triangulation points.

On the Ibiza, it is noted they had their greatest challenge because of the distance which they thought might be impossible. Biot took his position on the mountaintop Campvey (I am unsure what the elevation is of this mountain, but the highest elevation on the island is 1558 ft). In fact, they used 8 mirrors to attempt this instead of the usual 2 or 3. After 6 months of attempts, only Biot saw Arago’s light. Arago did not see Biot’s.

After my research, two things stand out. First, Arago did not see Biot’s light and so it is at the very least difficult to accomplish this task and possible that Biot falsified his reporting (there were other tensions ongoing with hostility between France and Spain that could have encouraged him to do so). Second, the two were not at the same height. The question remains therefore, could they see each other on ball Earth?


To do this I constructed this crazy diagram of the Earth with an observe at a height (h), trying to view a light or other object and a different height (x). The angles and b can be calculated using trigonometry since the radius (R) of Earth is known. The distance between these two locations is listed as 100 miles by the author above and 150 km (93 mi) in the book. So if the combined distance of the two locations is equal to or greater than 93 miles then it is possible to see even on a ball Earth.

Remembering in trigonometry that the cosine of an angle is equal to the adjacent side of a right triangle divided by the hypotenuse you end up with the angle identified by the following equations:


Then once having the angle and remembering that each mile of earth circumference is equal to 0.01446 degrees, it is trivial to calculate the distances.

Using the height of 2391 feet for Arago and 1558 feet for Biot, I calculate that they could see each other from 108 miles apart (within the actual distance).

Lastly, the calculated loss of height equal to 6600 feet is for an observer’s height equal to zero. This is completely different than the actual problem.