200 Proof: 1000 MPH Winds

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

Atmospheric movements are more complicated than this. They require an understanding of fluid dynamics, thermal changes, and air density. This results in weather currents. In general though, this of course makes sense. The closer air is to the Earth, the more the things like trees, hills, and buildings will cause the air to move at the same velocity as the ground. Because of the air currents and lack of friction further up, the atmospheric winds are able to climb until air density and temperature decline to a level that causes the atmosphere’s movement to slow.

I’m honestly not sure how rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes, or projectiles behave differently. In fact, they behave precisely the way they should on a ball Earth. All of these things move with relative velocity the way they should on a ball Earth.


Proof 200: Inertia Revisited

21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

Remember inertia. A massive object takes more force to accelerate. An object on the surface of the Earth, including a person, is moving with constant speed. This speed is precisely the same as the Earth. The friction of the Earth is pulling everything around at the same speed. If this was not the case, a person would feel the Earth sliding under his feet. If you think this is proof against a ball rotating ball Earth, go to the airport and stand on the moving sidewalks. After getting on the sidewalk, you can stand still without the ground pulling out under your feet. People don’t feel motion. People only feel acceleration.

An airplane resting on the ground is already moving equal to the velocity of the ground under its wheels. When the plane takes off it is moving relative to the ground at takeoff velocity. If that velocity is for example 200 mph. It is moving at 1200 mph from the imaginary reference frame “at rest” relative to the surface of the Earth. A hot air balloon rising because of a vertical force lifting it directly from the ground, continues to move with the Earth’s surface, because it has not lost its momentum. In order to enter this imaginary reference frame at rest compared to the ground, the dirigible would need to accelerate in the opposite direction of the Earth’s spin to counteract this inertia.

200 Proof: Inertia

Let me apologize for not being active for awhile. It is not because I came to terms with a flat Earth. Instead, I have been too busy with my life. Even so I have been studying gravity, playing chess, and traveling. Back to proofs.

20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.

Much like how Newton’s Three Laws are really Two Laws of Motion; this is one of the arguments that is often repeated. To refresh: 1) an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is acted on by a force; 2) acceleration is equal to force divided by an object’s mass; and 3) for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This test can also be performed on a train. If a person throws a ball directly vertically it will fall to the ground directly below where it fell from the reference frame of a train passenger. However, if the same ball was viewed from a person watching the train pass by, the ball would move forward with the drain and appear to have a motion described by a parabola.

proof 20-vertical ball from train

While it would look like the person threw the ball vertically up and down. If you change your reference frame to a “stationary” person next to the train tracks, the person would appear to have thrown the ball forward at the velocity of the train.

proof 20-vertical ball from tracks

Crazier still is to imagine the reference frame of a person falling off a cliff watching someone throw a ball vertically. It would appear to continue to move upward with constant velocity relative to that falling person. This idea is what separates general relativity from Newtonian relativity.

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.