We've given you evidence as to why the Earth is round. You've provided evidence to show our "theory" is wrong (or at least point out that we cannot prove it without a doubt), now I'd like to see evidence for the theory of a flat earth.
That's not the aim of the thread, gilles.
However, I'll gladly do it. Writing now.
EDIT: here you go:
In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.
In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.
Scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.
But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.
In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?
A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.
So, once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world -- the North Pole -- gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the 'globe'?
I acknowledge beforehand that we (the FEZ) are aware of the property of matter known as 'friction'. Yes, we realise that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet to actually be able to fall off.
Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.
Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!
Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.
Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.
But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.
Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.
Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.
Now, if we are to look at the property matter of Gravity, then we will find the following:
- Gravity as a force does not exist
- Gravity is not the same thing as gravitation
- Gravitation is not limited to objects with mass
This may sound slightly strange, but give me the due care and attention that you are and read on for a bit longer.
Gravity specifically refers to the force that Newton theorized happens between bodies with mass and is transmitted instantaneously. This, however, is incorrect, for a few reasons. One, gravity is not a force. It only looks to us as one because we assume we are not accelerating, but are at rest. However, we are undergoing a constant physical acceleration when we are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise. Two, it only acts on objects with mass. This leaves out a whole bunch of phenomenon. Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.
Gravitation, is the apparent attraction between objects. This includes those objects that have no mass. It also places the limit on the speed that this attraction can have, which is the speed of light. Now, whether this attraction is due to our tendency to follow geodesics or our acceleration through space is a matter of which model you subscribe to.
Gravity is, basically, a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial. Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary.
To even quote wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force said:
"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity."
And now, to quote the mathmatical gazzette, for those users this way inclined:
The Mathematical Gazette Volume 16 said:
SIR,-Has the above question any meaning ? If it is not possible for human beings to prove that the Earth is either round or flat, surely the question becomes meaningless. I give below reasons for thinking that we cannot answer the question one way or the other. Let us take a system of three unit vectors, e1, e2, e3, at right angles to each other and use spherical polar coordinates, viz. Φfor the co-latitude measured from e3, Θ for the meridian angle measured from e1, r for the radius vector. The differential vector dr of Euclidean 3-space using these coordinates is (1) dr=r(cos Φ cos Θ. e +cos Φ sin . e2 - sin Φ +. e3)dΦ + r ( - sinΦ) sin Θ. el + sin Φ ( cos Θ. e2) dO + (sin Φ cos Φ + sin Φ) sin Θ. e2 + cos Φ. e3)dr.
Squaring (1) we get for the square of the line element (or ground form) (2) ds2=(dr)2 = r2 dΦ2 + r2 sin^2 Φ dΘ2 + dr^2.
Putting r=a in (1) we get for the differential vector of a sphere of radius a, in 3-space, (3) dr=a(cos Φ cos Θ. e1 +cos Φ ( sin Θ . e2 - sin Φ . e3) d +a (- sin Φ sin Θ. e^1 + sin Φ cos Θ. e2) d Θ,
with ground form (4) ds^2 =a^2 d Φ^2 +a^2 sin^2 Φ d Θ^2.
Next consider the non-Euclidean 3-space whose differential vector is, with Φ, Θ and r as parameters, (5) do- =r . e1 Φ + r sin Φ. e2 dΘ + e3. dr.
Squaring it, we get its ground form: (6) ds^2= r^2 dΦ^2 r^2 sin^2 4 dΘ^2 + dr^2.
Consider the Riemannian 2-pole elliptic plane with constant 1/a, lying in this non-Euclidean 3-space. It is obtained by putting r=a in (5). Its differential vector is (7) do-=a. e1 dΦ +a sin Φ) .e^2d Θ.
Its ground form is (8 ) ds^2=(do-)^2 =a^2 d Φa ^2 + a^2 sin^2 Φ dΘ^2.
By comparing their ground forms (2) and (6), we see that the Riemannian 3-space is " applicable " to Euclidean 3-space.
By comparing (4) and (8 ) we see that the Riemannian plane is " applicable" to the Euclidean sphere. Let us now suppose that two persons E and N move about the Earth in company with each other. Any measurements they may make will be the same, e.g. if they measure the sides and angles of a geodesic triangle, they will get the same relations connecting the sides and angles as given in spherical trigonometry. E chooses to interpret such measurements as proving that the surface is a sphere of radius a, lying in Euclidean 3-space. N chooses to interpret them as proving that the surface is the above-mentioned Riemann plane lying in the non-Euclidean 3-space (5). The geometries of these surfaces and spaces are the same. Therefore no possible experiment can decide between them. The proofs given in books on geography and astronomy beg the question by assuming our 3-space Euclidean. A corresponding argument applies to the case of a spheroid.
... Q.E.D.
References said:
* Blakeston, Oswell. England's latter-day flatearthists. (The story of a correspondence.) Life and letters, v. 62, July 1949: 9–24.
AP4.L416, v. 62
* Bramhall, William. Wilbur Glenn Voliva. In his The great American misfit; 26 bizarre personal histories. New York, C. N. Potter [1982] p. 71–73. port.
CT9990.B7 1982
* Carpenter, William. One hundred proofs that the earth is not a globe. [6th ed.] Baltimore, 1885. 39 p.
QB638.C3 1885a
* Cohen, Daniel. Is the earth flat or hollow? Science digest, v. 72, Nov. 1972: 62–66. col. illus.
Q1.S383, v. 72
* Collamore, R. G. S. His pronouncement: a layman's version, a layman's message. Philadelphia, Dorrance [1924] 157 p.
Q173.C6
* Cook, Frederick H. The terrestrial plane; or, The true figure of the earth. [London, 1908] 64 p.
Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8563. b. 52.
* Davenport, Walter. "They call me a flathead." Collier's, v. 79, May 14, 1927: 30–31. illus., ports.
AP2.C65, v. 79
"Wilbur Glenn Voliva, the boss of Zion City, knows the world is flat. He can prove it. He doesn't care what you think or what the newspapers say. He's still doing business at the old stand, and business couldn't be better."
* DeFord, Charles S. A reparation: universal gravitation a universal fake. Fairfield, Wash., Ye Galleon Press [1992] 62 p. illus., port.
QB283.D44 1992
Reprint of the 3d ed. (New York, Fortean Society, 1931), with a new introduction by Robert J. Schadewald.
"... an attempt to prove that the world is flat."
* Edgell, William. Does the earth rotate? [London? 1927] 69 p. illus., port. NN
* Flat city. In Odd and eccentric people. By the editors of Time-Life Books. Alexandria, Va., Time-Life Books [1992] (Library of curious and unusual facts) p. 13–l4. illus., port.
CT9990.O33 1992
About Wilbur Glenn Voliva.
* Flat earth. New statesman and nation, new ser., v. 9, Jan. 12, 1935: 35–36.
AP4.N64, s. 2, v. 9
Signed Y. Y.
On the views of Henry Edgell, "the most persistent modern advocate of the theory that the earth is flat," who had just died at the age of 73.
* Gardner, Martin. Flat and hollow. In his Fads and fallacies in the name of science. [Rev. and expanded ed.] New York, Dover Publications [1957] p. 16–27.
Q173.G35 1957
The part of this chapter dealing with flat-earth proponents is about Voliva and the Christian Apostolic Church in Zion, Ill.
* Gates, David, and Jennifer Smith. Keeping the flat-earth faith. Newsweek, v. 104, July 2, 1984: 12. port.
AP2.N6772, v. 104
On Charles K. Johnson and the International Flat Earth Research Society.
* Gleason, Alex. Is the Bible from heaven? Is the earth a globe? 2d ed., rev. and enl. Buffalo, N.Y., Buffalo Electrotype and Engraving Co. [1893] xix, 402 p. illus., map, col. plates, ports.
QB638.G56
* Goudey, Henry J. Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated. Over 75 arguments and 30 diagrams. Boston, Mass., 1930. 145 p. illus., fold. map.
QB52.G7
* Gould, Stephen J. The persistently flat earth. Natural history, v. 103, Mar. 1994: 12, 14–19.
QH1.N13, v. 103
Investigates the relatively recent origin of the notion that scholars of the Middle Ages, with few exceptions, believed the earth was flat.
* Hampden, John. The new manual of biblical cosmography; or, Outline of the general system of the universe. London, Beaumont [1877] 15 p. fold. illus.
QB638.H22
* The Infidel globe; or, Scientific witchcraft, the emblem of paganism and the refuge of the atheist. [London?] 1884. [4] p.
YA 22866 Rare Bk. Coll.
* Johnson, Gilbert. The book of light, a brief description of the earth, with a map showing its shape. The earth being flat instead of round, the sun is not stationary but moves. Greer, Mo., 1923. 48 p. fold. map.
QB638.J6 1923
First published in 1890 (7 p. QB638.J67).
* Jones, Charles W. The flat earth. Thought, v. 9, Sept. 1934: 296–307.
AP2.T333, v. 9
Finds that educated persons in the Middle Ages knew that the earth is round.
* Labbie, Edith. The world is flat. In Those eccentric Yankees. Edited by John Lovell. Introd. by Robert Taylor. Camden, Me., Yankee Books [1991] p. 10–13.
CT9990.T58 1991
About Joseph W. Holden (1816–1900) of Otisfield, Me.
* Lindsay, Thomas. Astronomical myths—the flat earth. Popular astronomy, v. 6, Sept. 1898: 405–408.
QB1.P8, v. 6
* London. Zetetic Society. Chart and compass, sextant and sundial, latitudes and longitudes, plumbline and pendulum, globe or plane? A letter of remonstrance, respectfully addressed to the officers of the Naval and Mercantile Marine of England and America. [London, 1887] 8 p.
Held by the British Library under shelfmark c. 19. (9.).
* Macht, David I. Science and the Bible. Science, v. 114, Nov. 9, 1951: 505.
Q1.S35, v. 114
Letter commenting on Ray's observations on the shape of the earth as implied by Revelation 7:1.
* McCready, William D. Isidore, the Antipodeans, and the shape of the earth. Isis, v. 87, Mar. 1996: 108–127. illus.
Bibliographic footnotes.
"That the sphericity of the earth was clearly established in the ancient world is beyond dispute. Apparently unknown to the Babylonians or Egyptians, it was a discovery of Greek astronomy and was generally accepted among natural philosophers by the time of Aristotle. It was the received view of educated Romans as well, including Pliny the Elder. Among Christian thinkers, however, its fortunes are not quite so clear. It was not without significance that the ancient Hebrews, whose views were reflected in Scripture, conceived the earth as a flat disk covered over by the dome of the heavens ... [Isidore's] grasp on the spherical nature of the earth was tenuous at best ..."
* Michell, John. Loyalists of the flat earth. In his Eccentric lives and peculiar notions. San Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [1984] p. 21–32. illus., plates, ports.
CT9990.M5 1984
References (19): p. 234.
The plates follow p. 32; no. [2]–[5] relate to the flat-earth supporters.
* Moore, Patrick. Better and flatter earths. In his Can you speak Venusian? A guide to the independent thinkers. [Newton Abbot, David & Charles, 1972] p. 16–29. illus.
QB52.M66 1972
* Morse, Charles W. Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth. Boston, C. J. F. Fletcher, Printer, 1913. 78 p. illus., port.
QB281.M8
* Proctor, Richard A. A challenge from the earth-flattening society. Knowledge, v. 4, Nov. 30, 1883: 336.
Q1.K7, v. 4
* Proctor, Richard A. The earth-flattener's challenge. Knowledge, v. 4, Dec. 14, 1883: 362.
Q1.K7, v. 4
* Proofs (so-called) of the world's rotundity, examined in the light of facts and common sense, by "Search Truth." [London, Zetetic Society, 1882?] 2 p. illus.
YA 22774 Rare Bk. Coll.
"... the world is as God made it, a circular and motionless plane, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolving at very moderate distances above it ..."
* Quinlan, John E. The earth a plane. London [1906]
Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8563. b.
* Randi, James. Flat Earth Society. In his An encyclopedia of claims, frauds, and hoaxes of the occult and supernatural. James Randi's decidedly skeptical definitions of alternate realities. New York, St. Martin's Press [1995] p. 97–98.
BF1407.R36 1995
* Ray, Cyrus N. The rectangular earth. Science, v. 113, May 25, 1951: 610.
Q1.S35, v. 113
Letter calling attention to Revelation 7:1 which suggests that the earth's shape is that of a flat rectangle.
* Really, is it flat? Moody Bible Institute monthly, v. 30, Sept. 1929: 6.
BR1.M6, v. 30
* [Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
QB638.R87
* [Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. Earth not a globe. An experimental inquiry into the true figure of the earth, proving it a plane, without orbital or axial motion, and the only known material world; its true position in the universe, comparatively recent formation, present chemical condition, and approaching destruction by fire, &c., &c. By "Parallax" [pseud.] The illus. by George Davey. 3d ed., rev. and enl. London, Day, 1881. 430 p. illus. CaBViP; CtY; ICJ
* Russell, Jeffrey B. The flat error: the modern distortion of medieval geography. In Mediaevalia, a journal of medieval studies. v. 15; 1989. Binghamton, Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies of the State University of New York, 1993. p. [337]–353.
CB351.M38, v. 15
"I first review the evidence that educated medieval people knew the shape of the planet, go on to show how and why the ‘Flat Error' developed, and end with some suggestions about the precarious nature of historical knowledge."
* Schadewald, Robert J. The flat-out truth; earth orbits? Moon landings? A fraud! says this prophet. Science digest, v. 88, July 1980: 58–63. port.
About Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society.
* Schadewald, Robert J. He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat. Illus. by W. B. Park. Smithsonian, v. 9, Apr. 1978: 101–102, 104, 106–108, 110, 112–113. illus. (part col.)
AS30.S6, v. 9
"A renowned English naturalist [Alfred Russel Wallace] seeking to convince a nonbeliever, won argument, lost the money."
* Scott, David W. Terra firma: the earth not a planet, proved from scripture, reason, and fact. London, Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1901. xvi, 288 p. illus., fold. map.
CtY; MdBJ
* Serland, F. S. Did the older ecclesiastical writers deny the sphericity of the earth? American Catholic quarterly review, v. 43, Apr. 1918: 340–343.
AP2.A332, v. 43
Points out "that Venerable Bede in the first half of the eighth century knew and taught the sphericity of the earth" and that this knowledge was not dependent on Islamic learning.
* Shippey, Chester M. Answers to the common "proofs" that the earth is a globe. Leaves of healing, v. 66, May 10, 1930: 138–142, 184.
BX7401.L3, v. 66
* Shippey, Chester M. The true shape of the earth. Leaves of healing, v. 66, May 10, 1930: 158–160, 162–166, 168–173, 175.
BX7401.L3, v. 66
* Sifakis, Carl. Voliva, Wilbur Glenn (1870–1942): king of the flat earthers. In his American eccentrics. New York, Facts on File Publications [1984] p. 226–229. port.
CT9990.S53 1984
* Sisk, John P. The view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth. Harper's, v. 258, Mar. 1979: 127–129.
AP2.H3, v. 258
On the International Flat Earth Research Society.
* Smith, Carl Albert. Is the earth a whirling globe? 2d ed., rev. and enl. Northampton [1918] 112 p.
Held by the British Library under shelfmark 8562. aaa. 35.
* Wallace, Alfred Russel. [Hampden and the flat earth] In his My life, a record of events and opinions. v. 2. New York, Dodd, Mead, 1905. p. 381–393. illus.
QH31.W2A, v. 2
* Wallace, Irving. In defense of the square peg. In his The square pegs; some Americans who dared to be different. New York, A. A. Knopf, 1957. p. 3–24.
CT9990.W3
Discusses Wilbur Glenn Voliva on p. 3–8.
* Where are they now? The flat earthers. Newsweek, v. 73, Jan. 13, 1969: 8. port.
AP2.N6772, v. 73
About the International Flat Earth Research Society, then based in Dover, England. The portrait is of Samuel Shenton, the society's general secretary.
* White, Andrew D. The form of the earth. In his A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom. v. 1. New York, D. Appleton, 1896. p. 89–98.
BL245.W5, v. 1
* White, Arthur V. The shape of the earth; some proofs for the spherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-books examined, and shown to be unsound. [Toronto?] University of Toronto Alumni Association, 1909. [12] p. illus.
QB283.W5
Reprinted from the University Monthly, Mar. 1909.
* [Winship, Thomas] Zetetic cosmogony; or, Conclusive evidence that the world is not a rotating-revolving-globe, but a stationary plane circle. By Rectangle [pseud.] 2d ed., enl. Durban, Natal, T. L. Cullingworth, 1899. 192 p.
QB638.W77
First published in 1897 (46 p. QB638.W769).
* Wise, Carl S. The Bible and the earth's shape. Science, v. 113, Feb. 2, 1951: 128.
Q1.S35, v. 113
Declares that "the Bible itself nowhere states that the earth is flat."
* Woofson, H. Ossipoff. The flat earth and her moulder. Knowledge, v. 5, Mar. 28–Apr. 4, 1884: 213, 233.
Q1.K7, v. 5
The former secretary of the Zetetic Society "promises to show the nature of the deceptions practised by some at least among the advocates of the flat-earth theory."
I've even gone to the extent to create a 'Q&A' to answer all your questions:
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."
A: As the warped light intersects with the earth, a spectator further away is too low to see the light rays that didn't hit the ground and cannot receive light through the Earth.
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"
A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. These are designed to transmit signals and perform the basic tasks of satellites but function differently.
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"
A: This is unknown. Most believe it to be just rocks.
Q: "What about gravity?"
A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. Einstein proved this.
Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"
A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. See in depth explanation.
Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.
Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"
A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. What we know as 'gravity' is provided by the acceleration of the earth.
A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non sequitur. The cause of gravitation is unknown and RE propaganda would have you believe all masses have the same properties.
Q: Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?
A: Circle, like in the UN logo, however, the earth is NOT 2D, it is in the shape of a cylinder.
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.
Antarctica as a continent does not exist. Is exists as a rim surrounding the Earth.
Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"
A1: The ice wall is likely a mountain range. The distance of the sun's radiation just allows it to be covered in deep ice and snow.
A2: Global Warming would better be described by cyclical climate change. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
Q: "What about tides?"
A1: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
A2: The antimoon, is an object with a gravitational pull just like the moon, and is underneath the Earth. If it was above the Earth, it would be directly across the diameter of the moon path following the same motion as the moon. These create predictable tides.
Q : "Why is the North pole colder than the equator?"
A: The sun circles over the equator, thus the north pole and south rim don't receive the same intensity of light.
Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"
A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard.
Q. "How does our iron core produce the magnetic field ?"
A. Both churning spinning molten iron cores work the same way to generate the field. The shape of the field matches based on latitude in both models.
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"
A: The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE. The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"
A. The moon gets its light from the sun and reflects it. When the sun is nearing furthest away from the moon, the light that normally extends down and up like a parabola, is interrupted by Earth. Distances approaching this limit, would yield the effects of lunar phases.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: The airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites don't exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it.
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You're mistaken. On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.
Q: "How do seasons work?"
A: The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus. The image is by thedigitalnomad.
