Flat Earth….. ridiculous! Or is it…

Spread the love

Since a very early age we are presented the place we live in, the earth, as a globe. A planet moving through space around the sun. And why would we challenge that? If our parents tell us that and our schoolteachers tell us that, and we see photos of that and images on TV showing that – there’s very little chance we would think anything different, unless we believe everyone for some reason is lying to us, but that’s quite extreme isn’t it! We tend to trust people especially if they love and care for us, and what we learn from them gives us our sense of identity and belonging – our place in the world.

But, what if, for one reason or another, what we were taught about that was wrong? Either because those we believed just didn’t know either, or they were purposely telling us something different than the reality for some reason? It’s not impossible of course. In fact we’ve seen many things we thought were factual to be wrong, sometimes with devastating consequences especially when those things turned out to be harmful to our health. At one time doctors would tell patients that cigarettes were good for your health! We laugh at that now of course, but still not sure about fluoride perhaps – is it good for your teeth or a neurotoxin as studies are now showing? As science makes blunders such as this and our parents or guardians simply parrot what they’re taught it’s easy to see how we end up trusting people and do something which turns out to be harmful. Asbestos was once found to be a fantastic new building material, but now we know the terrible reality that mistake caused. There are many other such examples.

It’s amusing now but only 60 years ago doctors would recommend and endorse cigarettes as healthy!

So what if such a fundamental and underlying thing, such as the place in which we live, turned out to be very different to what we initially understood? Is that impossible to believe? Would we readily accept the information on it’s own merit and adjust our opinion on the matter accordingly, or would we shun it and refuse to even entertain the concept that is different than what we’ve held to be true? In the case of a medical emergency of course it would be foolish not to heed the warning, and carry on for example smoking cigarettes when a cancer has already been found growing in us. But in the case of hearing evidence to the contrary of where we thought we lived – on a spinning ball – we seem to have a different reaction, one of cognitive dissonance, at first refusing to take on board objective evidence that doesn’t tally with our current paradigm. Perhaps it’s too disturbing to long set-in ideas of our reality to want to think about, too troubling in a world where worries are already far too numerous. So we often take one of two approaches – refuse to even entertain the ideas put forth, usually by ridiculing them so as to easily dismiss as nonsensical, or debating them not with an open mind and objectivity but with a fierce clinging to old paradigms and defending what we believe to be true no matter what.

It’s sad when we get like that as human beings, a blind acceptance of things as the way they are, common in religion of course the blind unquestioning faith which breeds fundamentalism, fanaticism and intolerance. But perhaps just as common in other areas also such as blind faith in science, in which we wholeheartedly accept the conclusions of others even though we’ve never directly performed the experiment or perceived the results ourselves. Isn’t that just the same? Instead of blindly believing the words in an ancient book we blindly accept the words of a current teacher who of course isn’t infallible or beyond mistakes. In either case we need to be able and willing to question the conclusion, and if it doesn’t tally with our own logic and experience look deeper into it before we accept it as factual.

My first encounter with the topic of the ‘flat earth’, or geocentrism we could call it in a less triggering terminology, was about 2 years ago from a well respected friend. If it hadn’t come from such a person who I trusted I may not have thought to pay any attention to it, but luckily I did. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and started to look into the evidence, as was amazed at what I began to discover as if it was right before my eyes before yet I never noticed it! I’m ever grateful to him for that, and many seem to have the same experience of being skeptical until further research shows the reality to be quite overwhelming and in contrary to what we held true for all our lives. It’s both ‘earth’ shattering yet liberating – if you can embrace the change in perception, and turns out to be a really positive shift once the doubts clear around the issue.

And doubts are surely there in such a huge topic, but doubts shouldn’t prevent us from looking deeper and challenging the norm, or make us cling to old paradigms and ridicule anything to the contrary. It’s so common for those ideas to totally cloud clear thinking. Often we have to let go of what we think we know to actually learn, the big difference between knowledge and wisdom. So, prepare to let go of what you think you knew as fact and please look at the points I’m about to present with an open mind and heart.

We’re told that the earth is spherical, it bends all the way around, so we can travel around the world even upside down in Australia and other places in the Southern Hemisphere, but always feel the ‘right way up’. Does that sound unusual to anyone? I regularly travel to England from Australia and it certainly seems unlikely that I’m gradually going upside down… but of course many of you are thinking ‘gravity’. The magic ‘G’ word which we’ll deal with more later, as it’s fundamental to explaining the globe model and also fundamentally flawed as a theory that’s never been demonstrated. If anyone’s been on those gravitron rides at funfairs where you get pinned to the wall by the centrifugal force knows how strong that force is to keep you from falling off a vertical wall. How much stronger it would need to be to keep us pinned to the underside of a globe, yet do we feel pinned to the ground? Not at all! We naturally fall to the ground to be at rest and easily able to move around.

The force required to pin everything to the underside of a spinning ball would be felt like the gravitron funfair ride and nothing could freely move!

Probably everyone’s been to the beach and watched ships out at sea, apparently disappearing over the curve of the horizon. It’s an illusion. If you take a camera and zoom in on the ship it comes right back into view. It didn’t disappear over any curvature it simply went past the vanishing point of our limited perception, so it’s convergence not curvature at play here.

Things seem to disappear behind a curve but in actuality it’s just convergence to the vanishing point of our vision, shown here with a zoom lens

The same thing for land or buildings apparently disappearing beyond a curve, you can measure the distance of an object on the horizon and use online curvature calculators to see how much should be lost to view, then with a zoom lens see the object which is supposed to be lost behind the curve. How can it be curved when that’s the case? Convoluted explanations about light refraction are thrown around but that accounts for a tiny percentage so fails to explain it. Also if things like tall buildings were to be lost behind a curve they would appear to be leaning back not straight up, so again it’s convergence why we can’t see the base of the buildings until we zoom in.

Water always finds it’s level, it’s just a natural property of liquids to flow to the lowest level – they don’t remain curved but always lie flat. The earths surface is about 70% water, which on a ball would mean curving all the way around. It would also mean rivers flowing impossibly uphill in many places. Again, gravity is wheeled out to explain the impossibility of water curving but it’s never been demonstrated such a force is pulling water around a curve yet somehow failing to pull everything else with the massive force that would be required. On top of that the ball is spinning, further force being required to keep it intact. Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. On a flat model the water simply sits level, contained on all sides by the Antarctic ice wall which encircles the flat plain rather than being a small continent on the bottom of a globe.

On a spinning ball aeroplane flights would be very unusual. The globe is supposedly turning over 1000mph and planes fly under 600mph, so if you took a flight west to east you wouldn’t even catch up with the earth’s spin and flights east to west would be vastly quicker as the destination spins towards you!

You could just hover in a helicopter or balloon and allow the land to move 1000mph and arrive in no time! In reality flight times east to west and back vary in small amounts due to winds, just as north to south flights can – nothing to do with earths spin. The explanation given is that the atmosphere moves with the earth, at the same rate, meaning at the upper levels of the atmosphere would have to be moving much faster than ground level to keep up, and in reality air doesn’t move the same rate as earth does it may be affected by friction but in no way the same speed. A 1000mph spin would create 1000mph winds unless the theory of the air moving along with the earth, which isn’t proven.

We’re told that the earth is a globe which is rotating once per day around the sun, which at the size it’s calculated at is over 1000mph – faster than the speed of sound! Why don’t we feel that? Is it because we’re so accustomed to that movement, or is it because it’s not a fact? How would sound travel in this scenario? Only if the theory that the atmosphere is also moving would it explain it but again it’s not logical and hasn’t been observed.

A moving earth would make landing an aircraft impossible especially if the runway was north to south, as it moved 1000mph the pilot would have to account for that movement but no such calculation is necessary as the earth is stationary. Flights also climb to a determined height and level out the whole way flying across a flat plain. They don’t require to keep dipping the nose down to compensate for curvature or else end up in outer space!

Flight paths also indicate a flat plane and look very unusual on a globe with stopovers in places that seem far off route, but when observed on a flat map are on route – many emergency landings have stopped at places which are nonsensical on a globe but again make perfect sense on a flat map.

The seasons are explained on a globe earth as the tilt of the earth’s axis, so the suns rays are more spread out over a country experiencing winter. If that were the case the north and south poles would be similar in climate, but they’re vastly different. The Antarctic is far colder than the Arctic, which has fairly mild summers and plenty of plant and animal life whereas the bleak climate of the Antarctic doesn’t. On a flat model the sun circling around the North Pole in the centre on a path that moves between the tropics, explains the outer edge of the Antarctic receiving far less sun than the Arctic. This also explains the phenomenon of the midnight sun in the Northern continents as the sun circles in summer and never actually sets.

The flat model has the sun circling above which accounts for the sun never setting in the northern hemisphere summer

A compass couldn’t work in the Southern Hemisphere of a globe as magnetic north at the pole would be through the centre of the ball, but on a flat map the North Pole is at the centre so wherever you are it points directly to that centre as north and navigation ‘around the world’ is around in a circle.

The heliocentric model has earth orbiting the sun and the moon orbiting earth. But it’s clearly seen in video footage the sun is more localised and moves across the surface of the earth and gets visibly smaller and only seems to disappear due to going beyond the vanishing point of the horizon, hence only lights a portion of the flat plane. This localised phenomena is seen in the triangulation of sun rays through the clouds which would be at a straight angle with a sun millions of miles away, and sunspots wouldn’t be possible either.

The startrails wouldn’t be possible to photograph on a spinning globe anywhere but the north pole but the Vedic model has them revolving around the polestar above the flat plane

The stars are often cited as evidence of a globe earth, with an apparent north star or Polestar visible in the northern hemisphere which the other stars revolve around, and a southern polestar with similar rotation of stars around it but actually this is not the case. The northern star can be seen from everywhere in the northern hemisphere (or inner circle on the flat model) but the southern cross can’t be seen from everywhere in the southern hemisphere showing it’s again perspective at play not proof of a globe, as depending where the viewer is on the earthly plane certain stars are more visible due to the atmosphere above us being like a lens and distorting the view. This is one of the most complex topics in the debate about the shape of the earth but has been explained how it works on a flat model. If the globe model were correct it’s a huge coincidence that stars revolve around both above and below making the earth right in the centre of that rotation. However, the current heliocentric model has the earth moving around the sun which itself is supposedly moving at a fantastic rate yet the constellations have remained the same for thousands of years of history, so the rotation of stars around the polestar don’t make sense in that scenario but make sense on a flat stationary plane. Ursa Major can be seen from from as far south as 30 degrees which means seeing through the globe in that model so clearly that cannot be the case, and there are numerous other examples like this.

NASA admit to using Photoshop in images which are composites of several strips of photos taken at high altitude, not from space, and mapped onto a globe shape which isn’t a reality

The images of the ball earth we have all seen and may think as some of the strongest proof of a globe earth are in fact all composite images, taken from a high altitude and then stitched together digitally, which is admitted by organisations like NASA that they have to use Photoshop. But if there was a single shot from space of earth there wouldn’t be any need to piece together a composite image. Such images are seen to have changed significantly over the decades also with different sized continents so it doesn’t add up that these are the genuine photos of earth. The images from the lunar missions also have many discrepancies as have been shown by adjusting Photoshop levels and proving they have been pieced together also.

The whole lunar missions themselves are highly dubious as genuine space missions, and this is a topic in and of itself, and showing those to have been faked throws a huge doubt on the validity of any images taken from them. NASA conveniently lost a huge amount of moon landing footage, which with today’s technology would easily be shown to be fabricated, and a recent image from the so called dark side of the moon shows earth huge behind it but the images from the moon has earth as small as we typically view the moon from earth so they contradict each other. When a lie is presented as truth it’s easily caught out unless all subsequent lies add up to the same picture, and slip-ups become easy and show these authorities on space are being deceitful as they take billions of tax dollars and give us back doctored images and pseudo-science.

The image of the cross section of earth we all saw in school with the layers and molten core, is also of course purely speculative, as humans have only drilled about 8 miles down into the surface, so to say with authority what the centre of the earth looks like isn’t scientific it’s merely guesswork. Because we seem to have accepted scientists as authoritative sources without question we can be led to believe almost anything these days, as theories constantly change. The earth is now said to be an oblate spheroid which means fatter at the centre due to rotation, before it was slightly pear shaped…. So taking this as knowledge becomes somewhat of a joke.

Onto the topic of gravity. The idea of mass attracting mass, hasn’t actually been proven and has numerous flaws. The equations for calculating it are so lengthy and complex we might just assume it’s beyond our comprehension and accept it as fact. But in reality we don’t observe this theory of mass attracting mass, unless magnetism is involved. So the idea of a globe earth pulling everything to it’s centre isn’t actually a fact. If it were, the moon would be pulled into the earth – why does it stop at an arbitrary point and then orbit? The explanation that it’s ‘perpetually falling’ sounds quite absurd. We never see any planets colliding with one another, if random globes were spinning around without control surely it would be common for collisions, but we see perfect order in the planets orbits.

When objects fall to the ground and gravity is said to account for the speed of different objects, when dropped in a vacuum they fall at the same rate no matter what mass, showing it’s the air density that is causing this phenomenon not gravity. Certainly things naturally fall down to a resting state on the earth, but they don’t fall up on the underside of a ball as is claimed. If an object is heavier than the air it falls, if lighter it floats, it’s that simple. Same with objects on water that are buoyant if less dense than the liquid, and sink when more dense. So density and buoyancy can account for the falling of objects. If gravity were at play the force pulling everything around a ball would indeed be strong yet nothing is pinned to the surface and immovable nor pulled to the bottom of the ocean – birds can easily fly over the surface and fish swim through water without great downwards pull.

If I’m standing on the equator spinning at 1000 mph, my weight will be 175lbs. If I then fly to either north or South poles the rotation of the earth would be reduced to around 150 mph. The gravitational pull if existent would have to be so great that my weight would be around 7000lbs and I would be squashed like a bug.

Another problem for gravity is on a spinning ball a different amount of gravity is required for different areas. At the poles the movement is almost nil except for rotation whereas at the equator its over 1000mph. The difference in gravity would have to be huge otherwise the same gravitational force required at the poles to keep everything on a supposed 1000mph rotation would be so great at the poles it would crush everything to the surface! The difference in rotation would of course be experienced by people also, how would it be possible not to notice moving at over 1000mph or being almost stationary nearer the poles? Our senses can detect when we’re in motion and especially the change in motion or acceleration, and landing an aircraft on the equator would have to account for being very different nearer the poles but no such consideration has to be taken showing the spinning globe model again a falsity.

Genuine images of planets taken with Nikon P900 show them to be vastly different than the standard CGI images

If all the planets above us are spheres why isn’t earth? This is a common question, and assumes the other ‘planets’ are globular. They’re not. Contrary to paintings in textbooks when planets are viewed through telescopes they are seen to be pulsating light energy, changing shape and colour, not at all solid earthly and gaseous bodies we could land upon. Ancient knowledge of the cosmos lists the sun and moon and 5 planets in the order above us as the days of the week – beginning with Sun-day, moon-day, then Mars, Venus etc up to Saturn as Saturday. It doesn’t include earth as the ‘4th rock from the sun’, nor are any of the others going around the sun they’re also revolving around the polestar. The etymology of the word planet means ‘wandering star’, and in ancient root language of Sanskrit they are called ‘graha’ which means that which influences. Electrical energy can of course influence things in terms of astrology, but how does a lump of matter influence anything? Astrology may attempt to be dismissed as hocus locus by modern science but it’s very scientific and verifiable and observable just in a subtler way. From a good astrologer incredibly accurate predictions can be made, Nostradamus being well known of course and many others. Astrology works on a flat plane with the stars revolving around it and the sun moving through the signs of the zodiac which are set constellations.

The curve of the horizon is always thought to be concrete proof of a globe, yet the curvature isn’t actually observed all the images are distorted with a wide angle lens or purposely made curved with Photoshop software. When high altitude balloons have been sent up with cameras attached the horizon is seen to be completely level, and rises to eye level no matter what altitude, proving and extended flat plane not a globe. Anything showing curvature is merely propaganda to support the current globe paradigm, and the globe is repeatedly put in front of us since school, on TV news, movie intros etc. When something is seen over and over it solidifies in our minds as real and is difficult to think otherwise. We form a view of reality based on what we’re presented and anything contrary to that causes disturbance and cognitive dissonance can kick in to prevent us from dealing with a difficult task of rearranging our thinking and worldview.

A big question is often, why the lie? And there are many good reasons, generally to do with power and control. By giving people a certain amount of knowledge and restricting it makes it easier to keep people herded and unquestioning. Together with various distractions it effectively makes it much easier to manage or govern the masses of people for the benefit of the few at the upper echelons. The key to understanding why the great deceit lies in knowing what secret societies have been doing in concealing knowledge and painting a different picture of reality. Such people in societies such as Freemasons have a vested interest to keep people generally ignorant, and a quick look at history of the globe over about 500 years shows Freemasons to be the culprits – from Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, then Einstein, and Darwin (evolution also being tied in with the random space monkey ball as it’s sometimes referred to jokingly!). The Jesuits have long pushed the heliocentric model and the Big Bang theory.

It’s not that such people in power don’t know the reality, they simply conceal it and keep the knowledge amongst the elite few. Furthermore they often put it ‘hidden in plain sight’ as unsuspecting people don’t see the many obvious clues. The UN logo has a flat earth map in the centre, divided by 33 sections denoting the 33 degrees of Freemasonry. The National Maritime Organisation has a clear flat earth logo also, as does the World Health Organisation. Flat earth maps can be seen at many prominent places in the world of power and wealth – banks, airports etc. Why do such powerful organisations display flat earth maps instead of the typical globe we’re always presented with?

Darling Park in Sydney has a flat earth map amidst the gardens for big banks. Click the image to watch the video about it.

Only in the last half a century approximately has the globe been presented as our reality. Prior to that all ancient cultures had a similar model of the universe as a globe but the earth as a flat plane beneath the stars. This is of course ridiculed in the school system ‘we used to think the earth was flat now we know it’s round…’ and seems laughable at first as if uncivilised people like cavemen just didn’t know better. Completely forgetting amazingly advanced civilisations such as Egyptian, Vedic Indian etc had knowledge of things we can’t understand even now, we receive this distorted picture of history as ignorant barbarians in the past evolved into the pinnacle of civilisation we have today. Utter nonsense!

The ancient Vedic Indian concept of the universe has a flat plane of 4 billion miles across the centre of the universal egg

But because the same ilk have influenced the education system from the top down this is what we learn unfortunately, and our schooling becomes much more a way of making productive people in terms of fitting into industrialised society not creative thinkers. In keeping with the Freemasons secret societies space agencies such as NASA have been shown to have strong connections, including occult references, and it’s a little known fact that they were founded with a collaboration of occultist rocket scientist Jack Parsons and ex Nazi scientists brought to the USA by the CIA after WW2. It’s grown since into an almost untouchable government militarised organisation which in the US alone receives almost $20 billion in tax money. So apart from the general brainwashing into keeping people locked into a closed system of a globe, the financial aspect of keeping the globe in place is crucial, and something a growing number of people are putting into question.

We might doubt the likelihood of a worldwide conspiracy, as if millions of people are in on it and somehow keeping it under wraps. But understanding the pyramid system of the power structure simply means only those at the top levels know what’s going on, and humans have a tendency to blindly follow without enough question, so the masses aren’t aware of what’s going on at the top they just go about their jobs and all assume we’re on a spinning globe in a sort of ‘mass consensual trance’. But as soon as even a few question the status quo, the whole house of cards begins to fall and the deceit crumbles slowly but surely.

And at this point in history with the internet allowing access to and sharing of knowledge on such a large scale, it’s much harder to keep people quiet and we can see with the largest search on Google being flat earth, the powers have to really step up the effort to quash that growing concern – whether it’s controlled opposition, paid shills muddying the waters of debate, propaganda in the media strengthening the globe paradigm. We see NASA really pushing people out on world tours talking down the flat earth simply as a delusion, and their spokespeople are ex actors and comedians so people often prefer to be entertained rather than receive inconvenient truths, and feel safe in the flock where most people still accept the globe model as infallibly proven. To question it is simply absurd, tin foil hat material, mental instability. Thus it’s easily dismissed by many except outside the mainstream circuit.

So it’s our choice. We might not think it has any significant impact on our world, that there are much more important things to consider and address, but actually it is significant and underpins many other things which are the cause of the crumbling of our society, mainly the huge disparity between the rich and poor – those in power and those helpless and suffering. By establishing the reality of the universe we all live in, in all it’s magnificence, and clearly designed and purposeful existence we turn around the very notion that the universe and life itself all sprung from random explosion from nowhere and with no reason, and paint a genuine picture of reality – in which the world we live in has been created for us with the purpose of nourishing us and allowing a spiritual development and evolution rather than a mindless consumerism until we perish.

When we turn away from a purely materialistic way of thinking and living and treat the world and all it’s beings not as objects but conscious souls we will nurture a way of life based on mutual love and understanding, rather than an all too prevalent unconscious and uncaring exploitation. It’s already happening, and we can simply assist the process of awakening or choose to ignore the calling, but I believe we have an obligation to each other to improve this place wherever we can, and we can gain inspiration and strength from cultures whose knowledge stood the test of time and who knew the earth as a product of a loving Creator as a steady plane under complete control.

Recommended reading: 
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

www.waykiwayki.com

Sailing to Jambudwipa by Mayesvara das

Flat Earth Research Society Forum (IFERS)

10 Replies to “Flat Earth….. ridiculous! Or is it…”

  1. Haha. Rubbish conspiracy view with no facts. Shame. The billions of facts of a round earth are supported one hundred percent by prabhupada. Conspiracy debunked.

    1. Lalita dasi with all due respect you are incorrect Prabhupada’s last statement on the shape of the planet and universe was to take the Bhagavatam’s view as final which is a flat plane of Bhu-mandala described in detail in the 5th canto including land and inhabitants – in no way is that allegorical as Mayavada-esque commentators have suggested. ACBSP disciple Mayesvara das completely explains this in his articles http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/01-18/editorials15675.htm

  2. It is obvious that you care about what is true…. It is also obvious that you have not applied scientific rigor to any of the things you believe to be proof of your flat earth theory. By scientific rigor, I mean, for example, using more than just an example of an iphone (which you probably have not personally checked, yourself) to follow a ship as it passes over the horizon . A powerful telescope is the only thing that will allow you to follow a ship as it passes that point, which is 3 miles, or 5 kilometers away, for a person who is about 6 feet tall. Do a Google search for “how boats vanish over the horizon” and you will find some videos of people who HAVE videotaped a ship as it passes over the horizon. By your own logic, any such ship, even when magnified, should ONLY disappear from view by becoming smaller and smaller until the telescope can no longer see it, hidden behind the much closer waves. And yet, videos CLEARLY show ships at full telescope magnification, NOT getting smaller, but sinking lower and lower as they travel further past the horizon than your height allows you to see. Raise the camera by 10 feet, though, and the ship will magically come back into view, because a viewpoint 10 feet higher up can see FURTHER over the curve of the earth.

    This is just one example of true scientific rigor applied to your theories about a flat earth… I could refute each one of the things you write about, if you were willing to consider them… but my reply would become as long as your blog post.

    Please be clear, I am not mad at you for believing these things. I understand that someone has shared some convincing opinions with you, but they are just opinions, because neither you nor the person that you respected has delved into any attempts to examine these ideas with an “experimental” mindset.

    Experimental meaning “I think this is true, what can I do to try to disprove what I think, and does that actually disprove it?” Only when you approach what you believe with THAT level of rigor can you truly find out whether what you believe is true, or not. One of the issues that I have with people who believe that the earth is flat, is that they spend all of their time thinking up examples that support their belief, and not testing those examples, or verifying them.

    I would love to talk to you about these ideas… I especially would like to go point by point through this essay and discuss each point with you, offering ways to challenge your idea, respectfully. If you are at all interested in trying to convince me and letting me try to convince you, please don’t hesitate to email me (I assume the email that I input below will be information that you have access to?)

    best regards,

    Eric

    1. Are you seriously still defending the absurd idea of bending bodies of water that don’t flow? That contradicts known and observable fluid mechanics. You do realize that the ship disappearing at the horizon (the horizon being an optical effect, aka the vanishing point where the sky and water meet, not earth curve) has an explanation that does NOT require you to contradict known fluid dynamics, right? Ships going up and down hills of non-flowing water? Come on, man, that’s ridiculous. Large quantities of water always flow down curved land. If the water is curved, it’s flowing. For example, the Mississippi River flows down to the Gulf of Mexico. If the earth was curving, there is no reason that the Mississippi River would flow down to the Gulf of Mexico, but then the Gulf of Mexico would curve down to South America and not continue flowing. There is nothing wrong in this article. Stop defending your public education and have enough confidence to challenge that nonsense and trust your own senses.

      1. The curves of hills and mountains are caused by geological forces. The curvature of the earth is DETERMINED by gravity. There is absolutely NO contradiction here. Gravity causes water to flow down hills and mountains because gravity takes it from a point of “high stored (kinetic) energy” to a point of “low stored energy”. Gravity causes the curvature of the earth and oceans precisely because water and indeed ALL matter, seeks out that lowest point of energy.

        I do trust my senses. My senses include the ability to understand mathematical truths. But you can easily prove me wrong. They are rare, but there ARE several 300 meter long pools in the world. The author is correct that if the earth is not flat, such pools, when the water is completely still, will be somewhere between 1 and 2 cm “higher” in their centers than they are at either end. You cannot measure this “extra height” against the top of the physical pool, because of course the tiles of the pool have been laid using levels, which measure straightness via the force of gravity acting on the bubble inside. (As such, the pool will have the same distance between the water level and the tiles at its edge, all the way across… and seem “straight” to people who do not realize that the pool itself has been laid to conform to the curvature of the earth.) BUT you CAN observe the curvature of the water within the pool by using lasers… there are a couple ways to try this… you would need the help of multiple observers to do it. Since lasers are not noticeably affected by Earth’s relatively weak gravity, a laser will not follow the earth’s curve. This means that the laser will appear to either curve “into” the water at the center, or curve “away” from the water… depending on exactly what you’re doing with the laser at the end of the pool. Alternatively you could float a laser on the surface of the water in the exact center of the pool and aim it at either end of the pool… it should hit either end about 1 cm higher above the water than its height at the center…

        But this is my main issue with people who “trust their senses” …. they are exactly the kind of people who never do experiments to verify their observations…. In the middle ages, there was a commonly held belief that flies were “born” from rotting meat, because people “observed” that maggots suddenly appeared in the meat. It wasn’t until someone isolated different samples of meat in slightly different ways that they were able to prove that meat untouched by flies NEVER produced maggots.

        Please adhere to a level of scientific inquiry and experimentation that prevents us from returning to the middle ages.

  3. Great article, really well put together. We would like to speak to the author about the possibility of presenting at one of our conferences, or who would be a good person to get along. Cheers
    Kathryn

  4. Your video, in my opinion is the best explanation so far. This article seems to go over most of the content in the video. I’d like to work together if possible. Check out our website.

    Haribol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *