## How To Disprove The Flat Earth

Around 240 B.C, the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes devised a way to measure the circumference of the earth. He knew that each year on the summer solstice the sun would pass directly overhead and illuminate the bottom of a well in the city of Syene, about 500 miles south of Alexandria on the Tropic of Cancer. On that day, when the sun was at its highest in the south, he found that a stick in Alexandria cast a shadow at a 7.2 degree angle. This angle corresponds to the solar zenith angle – the angle between the sun and the point in the sky directly overhead. He reasoned that the distance between the two cities must therefore constitute 7.2 degrees of a circle, which indicates a circumference of about 25,000 miles.

Eratosthenes made two assumptions here: that the earth is a globe and that the sun is distant enough that its rays are essentially parallel.  Eratosthenes’ experiment alone does not prove that the earth is a globe because his assumptions must be true in order for his conclusions to be valid. Flat earthers reject these assumptions and posit that the sun is much smaller and closer to the earth so that its rays are not parallel. This can produce a 7.2 degree shadow just as easily. In order to find out which is the case, we must work backwards from these assumptions and see what each would entail if true, then we can find a way to test them.

After arriving at the circumference of the Earth, Eratosthenes is said to have made an ambitious attempt to map it. In doing so, he helped to invent the concept of latitude and longitude, a geographic coordinate system based on angular distance north or south of the equator and east and west of the prime meridian. In order to find the latitude of Alexandria, Eratosthenes would have just needed to wait until the winter solstice and repeat the experiment, in which case he would have measured a shadow angle of 56.2 degrees. Subtracting the 7.2 degrees between Alexandria and the Tropic of Cancer, this gives 48 degrees as the angle between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Dividing by 2, this would have placed the Tropic of Cancer at 24 degrees north of the equator (the latitude of the Tropics have fluctuated throughout history and continue to do so today) and Alexandria at 31.2 degrees north.

Modern science places the earth’s radius at 3,959 miles, which gives a pole to pole circumference of about 24,875 miles. Dividing by 360, we find that one degree of arc should be about 69.1 miles on the earth’s surface. That is why lines of latitude are about 69.1 apart. So on a globe for every 69.1 miles or one degree of latitude you move north or south of the point the sun is directly overhead, the angle of the shadow in that location would increase by one degree. If Eratosthenes was correct, the angle of his shadow must have been equal to Alexandria’s latitude north of Syene, because that would be the angle that Alexandria is leaning away from Syene due to the curvature of the earth. If three other astronomers had performed the experiment on the same day at 20 degrees, 40 degrees, and 60 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer, they would each respectively measure a shadow angle of 20 degrees, 40 degrees, and 60 degrees, and all would arrive at a circumference of 24,875 miles. The beauty of Eratosthenes’ experiment is that you can repeat it anywhere on earth, on any day of the year, and arrive at the same circumference. This is where the flat earth model runs into problems.

In the flat earth model, as a consequence of geometry, as your distance from the point the sun is directly overhead increases, the distance between each successive degree of shadow will also increase exponentially. For example, assume the sun is giving off a 45 degree shadow at 45 degrees north, as depicted in this flat earther meme. If the earth were flat, that would mean that the sun is, more precisely, 3,110 miles high. In that case, it would be 1,132 miles to the 20 degree shadow, 1,478 miles between the 20 and 40 degree shadows, and a whopping 2,777 miles between the 40 and 60 degree shadows. Someone performing Eratosthenes’ experiment at 20 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer would arrive at a circumference of 20,376 miles, someone at 40 degrees north would get 23,486 miles, and someone at 60 degrees north would get 32,320 miles.

Flat earthers use the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map, which shows all points at an undistorted distance and direction from the center. Lines of latitude on the flat earth map have the same spacing as those on the globe: 69.1 miles per degree. It is for this reason that the angle of the shadow can only be equal to the degrees of latitude between you and the point the sun is directly overhead in one location. Everywhere south of that point the shadow angle would be greater than the latitude and everywhere north of that point the shadow angle would be less than the latitude. If the sun were 3,110 miles above the flat earth, the 20 degree shadow would be 16.4 degrees north, the 40 degree shadow 37.8 degrees north, and the 60 degree shadow 78 degrees north. Only at 45 degrees north would the latitude and the angle of the shadow actually match as they would everywhere on the globe and only there would someone arrive at a circumference of 24,875 miles. You can change the height of the sun all you like, the latitude and angle will only be the same in one location. Even then, it is only a coincidence due to the random height of the sun, not a direct function of latitude as it is on the globe.

To be sure, if each of our astronomers were to measure a shadow angle corresponding to their latitude, as is to be expected on the globe, and you were still assuming a flat earth model, that would require that from 20 degrees north the sun be 3,797 miles high above the flat earth, at 40 degrees north 3,294 miles high, and at 60 degrees north 2,393 miles high. An impossibility. The only possible solution would be to distort the flat earth map beyond recognition by staggering the lines of latitude, but even then it would only be correct for a single day, as the sun moves to a different latitude each day and the model would again become increasingly wrong.

So to recap, if the earth is a globe, the angle between the sun and 90 degrees overhead must be equal to the degrees of latitude between you and the point the sun is 90 degrees overhead in every location. If the earth is flat, this can only be true in one location. Testing this discrepancy between these two models has the potential to end to this debate once and for all.

You can do this test yourself. You can’t be in two places at once to take multiple measurements on the same day but, lucky for us, the zenith angle of the sun in the sky changes everyday as the sun moves between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Since the sun is moving a fraction of a degree north or south each day, you can stay right where you are and test a new angle every day.

1. Go to this website, enter your location, and look at the sun transit time to find out when the sun will cross over your line of longitude, when it is directly south of you.
2. When this time comes, go outside, find something that casts a shadow, measure it, and carefully measure the length of the shadow. Only measure to the edge of the solid dark part of the shadow, not the lighter penumbra at the end.
3. Divide the length of the shadow by the height of the object and hit inverse tangent on your calculator to get the angle of the shadow. For precision’s sake, the sun has an angular diameter of about 0.5 degrees. The end of the dark part of the shadow is defined by light from the top of the sun passing over the top of the object, while light from the bottom of the sun crosses over the top of the object to mark the end of the penumbra, giving it the same angular width as the sun. To get the zenith angle of the center of the sun, add 0.25 degrees to your shadow angle.
4. Go to this website and see which latitude the sun was overhead at the time you measured the shadow.
5. If the sun is in your hemisphere and at a lower latitude, add the sun’s latitude to the angle you measured. If it is in the same hemisphere and at a higher latitude, subtract the angle from the sun’s latitude. If it is in the opposite hemisphere, subtract the sun’s latitude from the angle you measured. First convert the latitudes’ arc minutes to decimals by dividing by 60. (Example: 46° 34′ = 46 + 34/60 = 46.567°)
6. If the earth is a globe, the result, depending on the precision of your measurements, should be equal to your latitude.
7. To find the circumference of the earth as Eratosthenes did, multiply the shadow angle by 69.1 miles to get the distance. Divide 360 by the angle of the shadow, and multiply that by the distance. If the earth is round, the result should be close to 24,875 miles.

Alternatively:

1. Find the angle of a shadow at ANY time of day when the sun is out.
2. Find out where the sun was at overhead at that time.
3. Type those coordinates into Google Earth and measure the distance from there to your location with the ruler set to degrees.
4. Compare this to the angle you measured.

This method is especially damning because of the degree at which longitude lines diverge south of the equator on the flat earth map.

Still unconvinced by the astronomical coincidence that at a random time on a random day the sun was at the correct height and distance to be at the same angle in the sky as your random latitude north or south of it? Well it’s the moment of truth, because the angle should get progressively wronger with each passing day. Try it again the next day, or the next day, or the day after that. You can also do this:

1. Multiply the angle by 69.1 to get your distance from the point the sun was directly overhead.
2. Divide this by the tangent of the angle to get what should be the height of the sun if the earth is flat.
3. Now see what latitude the sun will be overhead two weeks from now. Convert it to decimals. If it’s in the opposite hemisphere, add it to your latitude, if not, subtract the lower from the higher. This is the angle of the shadow you should get if the earth is round.
4. Multiply this angle by 69.1 to get the distance.
5. Divide the distance by the height of the sun from step 2 and hit inverse tangent to get the angle of the shadow you would expect on a flat earth.
6. Wait two weeks and find the angle of a shadow again as you did in the first test.

If you get the angle you found in step 3, the earth is round. If you get the angle you found in step 5, the earth is flat. Still not convinced? Try it on the winter solstice, the spring equinox, and the summer solstice. Be amazed as you get the same angle you would expect to get on a globe each time.

Is there any way for a flat earther to ad hoc their way out of this? They could say that the sun is constantly changing height to give you the correct angle. Presumably it would be doing this for your sake as it would only work for someone at your exact latitude, giving everyone else in the world wildly inaccurate results. They could say the sun position website is wrong and the sun is moving away at increments that give you the correct angle each day, even though again, this would only be working for you. If you’re in England, the sun would have to be past the ice wall on the winter solstice to get an angle like 75°. They could come up with some kind of woo about the position of the sun being an illusion, but while you’re over there in David Copperfield land with your buoyancy gravity, we’ll be here in reality getting things done.

### 42 thoughts on “How To Disprove The Flat Earth”

1. Son of Sharecroppers October 21, 2015 / 5:43 am

This is well done. But I think that tI have two easier responses.

1. All of the modern flat-earthers whom I’ve encountered assume that the earth is a flat disk. They must do so because abundant evidence shows that people can travel from east to west and return to their starting point.

If the earth is a flat disk, and if the sun and moon spin around that disk at relatively low elevations, then the angular diameter of those bodies should change as they traverse the sky. But that is not the case. Instead, both the sun and moon appear to have an angular diameter of about one-half of one degree, regardless whether they are on the horizon or directly overhead. That very simple observation (which almost anyone can make) disproves the hypothesis of a disk flat earth.

2. Many amateur astronomers (such as I am) use telescopes that use what are called “German equatorial mounts.” A German equatorial mount consists of two elements, each of which may rotate, arranged at 90 degree angles to one another. The axis of one of the elements points directly north.

All equatorial mounts assume that the earth is a ball. One may align the mount so that one axis points due north. With the mount correctly aligned, the telescope will then track any heavenly body from east to west without having to correct for any north-south deviation.

It is true that the earth could stand still, with the heavens rotating around it. But it would be impossible for an equatorial mount to track without any north-south deviation if the earth were a flat disk. If the earth were a flat disk, with the heavenly bodies spinning around it, then those bodies would trace very different paths across the sky than are traced by bodies that appear to be rotating around a globular earth. And those bodies would move at different speeds, depending on their angular distance from true north. On the flat-earth theory, a celestial body near true north would appear to move more slowly than would a celestial body near the “equator.”

Tens and even hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers can attest to the contrary. If a telescope using an equatorial mount is set up in even an approximately correct manner, that telescope will track celestial bodies from true north (i.e., near Polaris) to as far south as the telescope may be pointed without altering the speed of tracking. This fact absolutely disproves the theory of the “flat disk earth.”

3. All published star charts assume that the earth is a globe. If the “flat disk earth’s” were right, then the angular distance between celestial bodies would be wrong–and those apparent angular distances would change as the celestial bodies traversed the sky. But that is not the case. I can personally attest that the angular distances between celestial bodies, as identified by star charts assuming a globular earth, match observation.

I am positive that no flat-earthers are amateur astronomers. If you mention “equatorial telescope” to any of them, they will shut up

Liked by 3 people

• fred ether October 4, 2016 / 5:58 pm

dumb article…..for anyone who has individual thought. FYI

Like

• zarlem May 8, 2017 / 6:54 pm

Dude… this article literally uses hard math and lets you do experiments yourself. It SUPPORTS individual thought. Learn how to read.

Liked by 3 people

• Walter D, Burnett March 4, 2018 / 10:29 am

fred ether Yep, “individual thought” is something that F.E.er’s do not possess. Theirs is the ‘thinking’ of the easily deceived and duped collective. Synonymous with a huge pack of frightened Lemmings, following those directly before them, blindly off the cliff. It’s true! Google Lemmings and their habits.

Like

• Iulian Anitulesei-Busuioc June 4, 2017 / 7:02 pm

Based on Eratosthenes experiment, the distance between the Earth and the Sun is 4,000 miles.Is the Sun 4,000 miles away or 93,000,000 miles away? If it’s 93 million limes away, the experiment failed.If the experiment did not failed, all the astronomers and all space agencies and observatories, and universities, and whatever else , failed.The answer is actually simpler : all of the above failed, starting with Eratosthenes and ending with DeGrasse and Hawking.The Earth is flat and motionless.

Like

• Anarchic Teapot June 6, 2017 / 8:36 am

The distance from the Sun to the Earth is irrelevant. Erastothenes used angles to calculate the Earth’s circumference.

However, to address your claim: not even the most pessimistic interpretation of Erastothenes’ calculation gives a Sun-Earth distance of 4000 miles. From Wikipedia:

According to Eusebius of Caesarea in the Praeparatio Evangelica (Book XV, Chapter 53), Eratosthenes found the distance to the Sun to be “σταδιων μυριαδας τετρακοσιας και οκτωκισμυριας” (literally “of stadia myriads 400 and 80000” but with the additional note that in the Greek text the grammatical agreement is between myriads (not stadia) on the one hand and both 400 and 80000 on the other, as in Greek, unlike English, all three (or all four if one were to include stadia) words are inflected. This has been translated either as 4080000 stadia (1903 translation by Edwin Hamilton Gifford), or as 804000000 stadia (edition of Édouard des Places, dated 1974–1991). Using the Greek stadium of 185 to 190 metres, the former translation comes to 754800 km to 775200 km, which is far too low, whereas the second translation comes to 148.7 to 152.8 million kilometres (accurate within 2%).

You’re welcome. And laughably wrong.

Liked by 1 person

• Joe Johnson August 20, 2017 / 1:37 pm

Flat earthers believe that pilots who believe they fly around (circumnavigate) a globe earth are really flying in a circle above the flat earth. This means flat earthers believe that the modern, high tech navigational systems in commercial AND military jets are so dysfunctional that they can’t tell the difference between flying in a straight line and making a left or right turn. (shakes head) I think it’s pretty obvious who’s going around in circles and who has their head straight. I’m just glad
FE’rs don’t fly for the airlines. Sometimes accidents happen. Never yet have we heard of an FE pilot making a wrong turn. LMAO! 😀

Liked by 1 person

2. Rob M (@rob_s_fl) November 10, 2015 / 6:03 am

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KOBE So if Okeechobee County Airport is 33.4 feet above seal level (Okeechobee, FL … Elevation: 33.4 ft.); Is that 33.4 above the Atlantic mean sea level 40 miles East or 33.4 feet above the Gulf of Mexico mean sea level 100 miles West or 33.4 feet above sea level at the southernmost point in Key West 190 miles Southwest?

Liked by 1 person

• planateearth December 29, 2015 / 7:22 pm

Rob M I suppose no one could wrap their mind around your obviously intelligent question!

Liked by 1 person

• John April 21, 2016 / 3:54 am

What is your point? On a round earth or other similar styled object, how far should you be able to see? I can see the beach of an island 10 miles away on whatever we are on. Please explain that on your map.

Like

• Chris February 20, 2017 / 7:17 am

Anyone in new Zealand can see around 100 miles from beach to beach and there’s no curve on the flat ocean sea level

Like

• John April 21, 2016 / 3:56 am

Most of Florida is below sea level.

Like

3. sindre February 27, 2016 / 4:35 pm

you are wrong, earth is flat
Eratosthenes’ stick experiment can not only tell us about the size of the earth, but can also be used to compute the distance to the sun as well. If the earth is round, the celestial bodies are computed to be millions of miles distant. If the earth is flat, the celestial bodies are triangulated to be relatively close to the earth’s surface.

In his experiment Eratosthenes assumes that the earth is a globe and that the sun is very far away in his computations for the size of the earth and the distance to the sun. However, if we use his data with the assumption that the earth is flat we can come up with a wildly different calculation for the distance of the sun, showing it to be close to the earth. The sun changes its distance depending on the model of the earth we assume for the experiment.

Millersville University goes over the two ways of interpreting Eratosthenes’ data. The first part of the article goes over the interpretation of his data under a Round Earth model, and the bottom part of the article goes over an interpretation of the data under a Flat Earth model.

Eratosthenes’ model depends on the assumption that the sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the earth. If the sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat earth. A flat earth model is sketched at the right. The vertical stick casts shadows that grow longer as the stick moves to the left, away from the closest point to the sun. (The sun is at height h above the earth.)

A little trigonometry shows that

figure

Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.

Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.” http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Like

• TakeThatAccounts February 29, 2016 / 5:07 am

Did you even read the entire post, or did you just get to the word Eratosthenes before you started copying and pasting Flat Earth Wiki? The two models make widely different predictions about the specific angle of the shadow you would expect. If the earth is a globe, the angle of the shadow should be equal to the degrees of arc between you and the point the sun is 90 degrees overhead, any time of day, any day of the year. On a flat earth this is simply impossible. I spent paragraph after paragraph explaining this. Go test it for yourself.

Liked by 3 people

• tony March 27, 2016 / 5:10 pm

I’d point out that the very last line of the reference cited (Millersville.edu) says, “We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.”

Liked by 4 people

• Saul Trane April 2, 2016 / 7:19 pm

You obviously don’t understand the above article. It’s clearly demonstrating to you that the sun’s angles which we observe on a spherical earth cannot be produced on a flat earth. It’s geometrically impossible.

Liked by 3 people

4. Chris Miller May 24, 2016 / 12:03 pm

Some of the comments in this Blog explain perfectly why there are people that believe that Flat Earth is possible given the vast amount of evidence. You can show them, explain to them, give them experiments to try and they just do not have the mental capability to process the information accurately. They fall back to the easiest explanation because of the own mental laziness. It is Sad to see.

Liked by 3 people

5. BillyJoe August 15, 2016 / 7:33 am

The earth can not be round because Jesus.
Nowhere in the scripture is a ball shaped earth mentioned. But indeed, the Lord stopped the sun for a day to give Izrael more light to fight a battle.
If the earth was round, all planes would have to constantly drop by eight miles per inch squared travelled.
And all that inverted tangentials you are talking about is just bullshit that the government put into the calculaters to confuse us. I have borrowed cousin Billybob’s calculater and tried this inverted tangen and there was not a single number I would understand coming out of that thing. Not even that stupid 69.1 you are talking about.

This whole globe thing is just a theroy, just like evolution. It’s a theory, not a fact.

Like

• Chris C September 28, 2016 / 8:28 am

Billyjoe, it’s obvious that you’re not too bright. I’m sure that even basic physics/geometry is beyond your realm of understanding.

Liked by 1 person

• David January 17, 2017 / 4:48 am

The same could be told about you, Chris C. Surely the definition of the word “irony” is outside of your reach.

Like

• Walter D, Burnett March 4, 2018 / 8:11 am

BILLY JOE That is 8 inch drop per mile squared, moron.

Like

6. victoria November 13, 2016 / 12:52 am

I am here to say not all flat earth people believe the flat disk model with the sun and moon circling over. This model just doesn’t work with observable facts and the existence of equatorial sun dials proves the sun follows a straight path. But the absence of an observable arc is compelling. You won’t find a curve anywhere on earth (this is the real science). Also, the curve formulas don’t seem to work either. Were these just planted in science books as busy work for students? I believe the earth is flat, but probably not a flat disk. That’s been a bit of disinformation.

Like

• TakeThatAccounts November 14, 2016 / 5:21 am

The curve formula “8 inches per mile squared” was first conceived of by a flat earther in 1865, and despite the fact that it describes a parabola rather than a circle, it is still used today exclusively by flat earthers who can’t do trigonometry.

Liked by 1 person

• daznez January 19, 2017 / 12:13 pm

nope, even using this calculator, the surveyor’s favourite – https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial – there is still no observable curvature anywhere – or lighthouses wouldn’t work.

islands seen from hundreds of miles away disproves the oft-tepeated baller’s argument ‘ships disappear hull first’ becuse of the curve of the ocean,at only 3-5 miles away.

i repeat what victoria said, not all flat earthers believe in the ae circle/ gleason’s map, but we still know the eath is not moving, and it’s not just that ‘you can’t feel it because the atmosphere rotates along with it.’ what, all 6200 miles of it, all perfectly in sync? as if it’s a solid body and not made up of free-flowing gases? how DO airplanes and birds ever fly against this 1038 mph onrush of headwind if they want to travel west?

i’ll wait.

Like

• Hapless Dark Star (@ColdDimSum) October 4, 2017 / 10:15 pm

I wholly support Globe Earth but would point out a small factual error in this claim for posterity:

“The curve formula “8 inches per mile squared” was first conceived of by a flat earther in 1865”.

8″ x miles squared is an old surveyor estimate, Rowbotham merely quoted the formula from Encyclopedia Britannica. It is pretty accurate for the first few miles, which is all it was intended for.

The true error, as I am sure you well know, lies in using this “drop height” formula when you should be using a formula that takes observer height into account.

The problem is that Flat Earthers are too ignorant to understand this and constantly exclaim how many thousands of miles of “curvature” are missing because they can barely see the top of some distant skyscraper or huge mountain when the camera is very clearly WELL above sea-level.

For more details see my post which shows how to derive the formula using Taylor expansion and geometrically, quoting from Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-how-to-derive-8-per.html

Like

• TakeThatAccounts October 4, 2017 / 11:23 pm

That’s very impressive website you have there. Great illustrations. I wanted to do some GeoGebra stuff on this but I was too lazy.

Like

• Walter D, Burnett March 4, 2018 / 10:20 am

Like

7. twkster March 24, 2017 / 2:01 am

DAZNEZ- Even the most rudimentary knowledge makes your assumption invalid. Why would the atmosphere not rotate with the earth? Yes it has mass which according to Newton should resist movement, or, if already in motion tend to maintain that motion unless acted on by an outside force… like drag! The gaseous atmosphere in round numbers is only about 180,000 feet thick… That is only about .008 the radius of the earth! Very thin! Surface friction tends to keep the atmosphere moving with the earth’s surface. The density of the atmosphere at sea level gives it a weight of 14.7 lbs per square inch. That is definitely a significant amount of drag.

Liked by 1 person

8. Teslina March 30, 2017 / 1:26 am

Hahaaahahahaaahahaaa!!!! My Lordy Lordy Lord!!! Do you even realize the entire impossibility of the likelihood of the heliocentric theory to even be a mere 1% functional??!!! For even the tiniest fraction of that made up, ludicrously far-fetched fairy-tale to even work temporarily at a half-assed replication of what we ACTUALLY see in reality, let alone perfection – there would need to be sooooooo many more principals of theories in physics that would need to be in place that are currently not yet within that Santa-clause of a theory. If I were to explain the inconsistencies within the theory, I would seriously need many, MANY pages and probably a few days of continuous work in order to write it all down. I WILL though, give you 1 simple stupidity involved in that theory in which anybody who believes in the heliocentric theory that goes over it over & over within their own minds, SHOULD come to the conclusion that it actually is completely opposite to anything that is remotely close to proper Science (in the way that we all know it). It is currently a theory in which all believers in the globe & the heliocentric theory all take fully for granted, but the more & more that you SERIOUSLY would think about it in a Scientific point of view, the more it will seem absolutely preposterous to you from that point on, and forever more!! The theory in which I talk about is that one of which a man named Albert Einstein made famous: The Theory of Relativity. Proposition wise, it was one to mesh together both Space & Time into one, continuous fabric within the universe in which when so-called “planets” with large amounts of mass/size/density that would dwell within this fabric of ‘spacetime’, would – by their very own density ALONE – would cause a bend within this said fabric. This bend shapes the entire disturbance into a ‘well’ and it is this well that is meant to be what we all call ‘Gravity’!!! Now, the problem here is that this entire ‘force’ is entirely fictional, as it has, (by any experiment done in order to show that it exists)never EVER been proven to exist, is ENTIRELY invisible, not only to the human eye, but is TOTALLY & UTTERLY INVISIBLE, in that no instrument or measuring gauge that has ever been invented, no matter how sensitive (and there are extremely super-sensitive instruments!!) has EVER picked up even the finest nuance of even any evidence of a shadow or any residual resonance or background feedback noise left over to even point to it existing in any way, shape or form!!! Simply put – it does NOT exist!!! Therefore – if that does not exist – this entire idea of earth somehow having a magical pixie force called gravity from fairy-tale land ALSO does not exist – and it does not even NEED TO exist!! Why? Because it is Buoyancy & Density which is the cause of the different layers of everything on earth!! We, as humans – all fall towards the earth, hence we stick to its lowest layer, whereas a balloon that happens to be filled with helium – rises to almost the very top of the atmosphere, and one filled with hydrogen would rise the highest!!! There is NO need to introduce a theory (and it IS just a theory) with which does not even need to be introduced in the first place – and is a totally fabricated, totally invisible, totally immeasurable, non-existent, magical, choosy force with which does not even need to exist in the first place!!
NOW – This is just ONE out of literally HUNDREDS of evidences AGAINST the heliocentric theory & the impossibility & extreme unlikeliness of there ever existing a spinning globe. On top of the hundreds of proofs proving against both theories, there exist also hundreds of proofs (literally!!) proving the existence of what model the ACTUAL earth/universe actually, (in all sincerity) is!!!!
BUT – that may be for another time!! Just soak up all of what I just said, and think hard & deep at the absurdity of how extremely unlikely the heliocentric theory & the spinning globe earth actually is!! I PROMISE TO YOU: The MORE that you really think about it all, and the way it is all meant to all be one entire, working, fully-functioning unit – the MORE & MORE that you will begin to catch yourself chuckling at yourself while you are thinking about it all!! Peace.

Liked by 1 person

• TakeThatAccounts April 22, 2017 / 12:28 am

Things fall because of weight, not density. Density is simply a ratio of mass per volume, it is not a force. Buoyancy is an upward force equal to the weight of the fluid an object displaces with its volume. Weight is a downward force determined by an object’s mass accelerated by gravity. A bowling ball and a balloon have the same buoyancy because they have the same volume and displace the same amount of air. The balloon floats because its buoyancy is greater than its weight. A bowling ball falls because its weight is greater than its buoyancy. Density determines whether a object will rise or fall, but it is not the force that causes it. Without the force of weight to accelerate mass toward the ground, nothing would fall. Without gravity, there is no weight.

Liked by 1 person

• Free Thinker October 28, 2017 / 4:51 am

@Teslina

Before I disprove you with logic, I wanted to
remove all the rhetoric and other opinions from your post just to distill the essence of your argument so it can be read for posterity.

“Ha! God! The heliocentric model is false!!! There are not enough observations that agree with reality to explain gravity. There are many inconsistencies in the theory of gravitation. I will disprove gravity with one example. The theory of Relativity. This theory posits that space and time are linked together as ‘spacetime’. Curvature in spacetime is gravity!!! Gravity has been experimentally disproved continously!!! Gravity does not exist! Why? Because it is Buoyancy & Density which is the cause of the different layers of everything on earth!! We, as humans fall towards the earth, hence we stick to its lowest layer, whereas a balloon that happens to be filled with helium – rises to almost the very top of the atmosphere, and one filled with hydrogen would rise the highest!!! Gravity is not measurable!!
Again, gravity is false.”

I removed all the rhetoric and a lot of what you said but hopefully this still preserves what you said. Let me know if I misinterpreted what you said if we need to correct it.

Like

9. obviouslyme April 17, 2017 / 12:58 am

On a moving train at a constant speed you can walk up or down the aisle just as easily. This only change when the train quickly accelerates or decelerates.

The earth is not quickly accelerating. Hope this answers your question. So you can stop waiting 🙂

Liked by 1 person

10. Levi March 26, 2018 / 6:53 am

Maybe the equitorial telscope is designed to work on a globe model

Like

11. A May 21, 2018 / 5:23 pm

I don’t understand, if the rays come in parallel, then why do I see the midday sun bursting through the clouds and splaying outwards, at night you can see the same rays off of lampposts and the rays point back to the lights location. To me this proves the sun is local and not 90 mil miles away. After all the sun was created on day 4, after God divides the light, which means more than one light source.

Like

12. LFSmith June 10, 2018 / 8:50 pm

A good article, but the flat-earth folks aren’t interested in scientific explanations. They believe either that the notion that the earth is a ball spinning through space is a silly delusion that violates common sense, or that there is a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from everyone for some reason. Neither of those two viewpoints will change due to any explanation, simply because the explanations themselves are part of the delusion or the conspiracy.

Like

13. carterphil1 June 17, 2018 / 9:01 pm

Nice! thank you so much! Thank you for sharing. Your blog posts are more interesting and informative. flat earth

Like

14. Marcus Gaillard March 4, 2020 / 8:51 pm

All you globe enthusiasts can do is point to your mathematical models and tell us all how wise you are. The model is contorted to reality. Let me explain now what is true: The Earth is not a ball in outer space. The ‘globe’ is predicated upon a presumption of ‘Gravity’ as theory of matter and some imagined bending of space-time nonsense. Gravity in this context is merely a mathematical formulation which cannot be demonstrated to hold oceans to balls in a vacuum. This is the unscientific assertion of the glober. Irrespective of what you presume the sky is doing, and by inference, presume to derive the “sphericity” of the ground, the ground is in fact empirically and obviously vast and planar. The ‘globe’ is entirely imagined and ‘justified’ within the mathematical modelling – not in scientific empiricism. ‘Globe’ is a quasi-religious belief taught to us by the Heliocentrists. I don’t expect you to be happy about this.

Like