One of heliocentrist’s favorite “proofs” of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or fly at right angles to the North Pole and eventually return to their original location. Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere. Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag!
“Circular sailing no more proves the world to be a globe than an
equilateral triangle. The sailing round the world would, of course, take very
much longer, but, in principle, it is exactly the same as that of the yachtsman
circumnavigating the Isle of Wight. Let me give a simple illustration. A boy
wants to sail his iron toy boat by a magnet, so he gets a basin, in the middle
of which he places a soap-dish, or anything else which he may think suitable to
represent the Earth, and then fills the basin with water to display the sea. He
puts in his boat and draws it by the magnet round his little world. But the
boat never passes over the rim to sail under the basin, as if that were
globular, instead of being simply circular. So is it in this world of ours;
from the extreme South we can sail from East to West or from West to East
around it, but we cannot sail from North to South or from South to North, for
we cannot break through intervening lands, nor pass the impenetrable ramparts
of ice and rocks which enclose the great Southern Circumference.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (68)
“A very good illustration of the circum-navigation of a
plane will be seen by taking a round table, and fixing a pin in the centre to
represent the magnetic pole. To this central pin attach a string drawn out to
any distance towards the edge of the table. This string may represent the
meridian of Greenwich, extending due north and south. If now a pencil or other
object is placed across, or at right angles to the string, at any distance
between the centre and the circumference of the table, it will represent a
vessel standing due east and west. Now move the pencil and the string together
in either direction, and it will be seen that by keeping the vessel (or
pencil), square to the string it must of necessity describe a circle round the
magnetic centre and return to the starting point in the opposite direction to
that in which it first sailed.” -Dr.
Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (226)
The ball-Earther’s logical argument is that only a globe can
be circumnavigated, the Earth has been circumnavigated, and therefore
the Earth is a globe. This is indeed a
logical modus ponens statement, but the conclusion is rendered invalid because
the first premise - that only a globe can be circumnavigated - is categorically
false. Another similarly logical but
unsound argument ball-Earther’s make is that only on a globe would one
gain or lose time when sailing/flying East or West, time is gained or
lost when sailing/flying East or West, and therefore the Earth is a globe. Again, the logical conclusion is rendered
invalid and the argument unsound because the first premise is incorrect. The same effect would be experienced on a
stationary flat-Earth as it would on a spinning ball-Earth.
“The gaining and losing of time on sailing ‘round the
world’ east and west, is generally referred to as another proof of the earth's
rotundity. But it is equally as fallacious as the argument drawn from
circumnavigation, and from the same cause, namely, the assumption that on a
globe only will such a result occur. It will be seen by reference to the following
diagram, that such an effect must arise equally upon a plane as upon a globe. Let V, represent a vessel on the meridian of
Greenwich V, N; and ready to start on a voyage eastward; and S, represent the
sun moving in an opposite direction, or westward. It is evident that the vessel
and the sun being on the same meridian on a given day, if the ship should be
stationary the sun would go round in the direction of the arrows, and would
meet it again in 24 hours. But if, during the next 24 hours, the ship has
sailed to the position X, say 45 degrees of longitude eastward, the sun in its
course would meet it three hours earlier than before, or in 21 hours--because
15 degrees of longitude correspond to one hour of time. Hence three hours would
be gained. The next day, while the sun is going its round the vessel will have
arrived at Y, meeting it 6 hours sooner than it would have done had it remained
at V, and, in the same way, continuing its course eastward, the vessel would at
length meet the sun at Z, twelve hours earlier than if it had remained at V;
and thus passing successively over the arcs 1, 2, and 3, to V, or the starting
point, 24 hours, or one day will have been gained. But the contrary follows if
the ship sails in the opposite direction. The sun having to come round to the
meridian of Greenwich V, S, N, in 24 hours, and the ship having in that time
moved on to the position fig. 3, will have to overtake the ship at that
position, and thus be three hours longer in reaching it. In this way the sun is
more and more behind the meridian time of the ship as it proceeds day after day
upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circum-navigation the
ship's time is one day later than the solar time, reckoning to and from the
meridian of Greenwich.” -Dr. Samuel
Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (229-230)
“The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the
Earth, brings ‘noon’ to all places on the successive meridians which he
crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the
Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's
position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at
those parts of the Earth where ‘time’ is more advanced, the watch in our pocket
has to be ‘put on’ or we may be said to ‘gain time.’ If, on the other hand, we
travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still ‘morning,’ the watch has
to be ‘put back,’ and it may be said that we ‘lose time.’ But, if we travel
easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day,
which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel
westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which
will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that
direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then,
instead of being evidence of the Earth's ‘rotundity,’ as it is imagined to be,
is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is
not a globe.” -William Carpenter,
“100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (100)
Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an
observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and
disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ship’s hulls disappear
before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around
the convex curvature of the ball-Earth.
Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty
premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of
Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same
occurrence. For example a girl wearing a
dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the
farther away she walks. Her feet will
disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of
her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like
her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. The same happens with cars speeding away, the
axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car
is gliding along its body. Such is the
case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point
of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.
“This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and
cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a
certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their
knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing
graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel,
we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of
light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the
horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears
in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves,
the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it
has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone
down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the
level of a Plane sea.” -
David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (75)
Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by
the Law of Perspective, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good
telescope. If you watch a ship sailing
away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely
disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look
through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into
view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of
Perspective, and not by a wall of curved water!
“On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the ‘Bedford
Canal,’ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may
be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without
feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly
visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very
calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just ‘hull down,’ a powerful
telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be
concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the
influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex
surface.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham,
“Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (216)
Ball-Earthers will often quip that “if the Earth were flat,
then we could see all over it!” but this is of course ignorant and inaccurate. If you stand on the beach, a plain or
prairie, you will find the horizon extends about three to six miles around you
depending on the weather and your eyesight.
The range of the human eye, our field of vision is from 110 to 1 degree,
and the smallest angle under which an object can still be seen is 1/60 of 1
degree, so that when an object is 3000 times its own diameter away from an
observer, it will cease to be visible.
So for example, the farthest distance at which one can see a 1 inch
diameter penny, is 3000 inches, or 250 feet.
Therefore, if a ship’s hull is 10 feet above the water, it will
disappear from the unaided eye at 3000 times 10 feet, or 6 miles. This has nothing to do with the supposed
“convexity” or “curvature” of the Earth and everything to do with the
common Law of Perspective.
“The horizon of an observer is distant or near according
to the greatness or otherwise of his elevation above the surface of the
supposed globe. If he stands 24 feet
above sea level, he is said to be in the center of a circle which bounds his
vision, the radius of which in any direction, on a clear day, is six
miles. A local gentleman tells me that
he has watched a boat-race in New Zealand, seeing the boats all the way out and
home, the distance being 9 miles from where he was standing on the beach. I have seen the hull of a steamer with the
naked eye at an elevation of not more than 24 feet, at a distance of 12 miles,
and in taking observations along the South African coast, have sometimes had an
horizon of at least 20 miles at an elevation of 20 feet only. The distance of the horizon, or vanishing
point, where the sky appears to touch the earth and sea, is determined, largely
by the weather, and when that is clear, by the power of our vision. This is proved by the fact that the telescope
will increase the distance of the horizon very greatly, and bring objects into
view which are entirely beyond the range of vision of the unaided eye. But, as no telescope can pierce a segment of
water, the legitimate conclusion we are forced to arrive at, is that the
surface of water is level, and that, therefore, the shape of the world cannot
be globular, and on such a flat or level surface, the greater the elevation of
the observer, the longer will his range of vision be, and thus the farther he
can see.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic
Cosmogeny” (56)
“On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of
Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the
water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and
sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came
nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had
elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers
was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least,
thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of
elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for
convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied
by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast,
and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the
outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other
experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always
with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy,
Earth Not a Globe!” (46)
In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault
became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were
proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation.
Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums
and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual
proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory. The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of
the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves
nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses.
“This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a
visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a
‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the
rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other
motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which
is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the
earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate
of over 1,000 miles per minute. Now to
prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the
show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and
women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is
rushing away through space!” -Lady
Blount, “The Romance of Science” (7)
“Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which
have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over
the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the
varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath -
asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the
pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But,
since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the
wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation,
and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to
substantiate their theory.” -William
Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (73)
To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing
in any one direction. Sometimes they
rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate
and sometimes they rotate far too much.
Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded
time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight
lateral bias at starting.” The behavior
of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing
and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular
motion over any other. The supposed
rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the
pendulum’s swing. If the alleged
constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should
be no need to manually start pendulums in motion! If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the
360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a
stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!
“First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the
plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often
variable - not always. The variation
when it does occur, is not uniform - is not always the same in the same place;
nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for
that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given
proposition. It therefore is not
evidence and proves nothing! Secondly,
if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection
between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the
experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the
pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one
conclusion in preference to the other?
Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension
of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon
the plane of oscillation? Was it not
known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry,
ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion
more readily than any other?” -Dr. Samuel
Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (153)
“We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its
proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we
can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’
that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts
to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the
pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite
impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum
turns in the opposite direction. Now we
ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and
the same time? We should like to
know. Perhaps the experimenters will
kindly enlighten us on this point … If the earth had the terrible motions
attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor
hear it. And how people can stand
watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the
motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it,
and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach.” -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (8-10)
Also in the mid-19th century, another Frenchman named
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis performed several experiments showing the effect of
kinetic energy on rotating systems, which have ever since become mythologized
as proof of the heliocentric theory. The
“Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern
Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing
them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s
Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household
are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape
of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry,
not the supposed rotation of the Earth.
“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s
eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in
reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the
receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a
single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day.
When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet
flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the
direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl
and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the
Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?”
Science.HowStuffWorks.com
The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and
weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern
Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern
Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend
towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in
the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however,
the same problems remain. Not every
bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore
cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the
sight aperture, human error, and wind? What
about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential
effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect
affect most storms but not all? If some
storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do
those storms escape the Coriolis force?
And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two
hemispheres be affected any differently?
Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the
Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for
wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment