The 10,000 Dollar Baller Challenge

Hello my beloved baller friends!

Today, I would like to formally issue my $10,000 Dollar Baller Challenge.



After years of endless searching and trying desperately to at first, refute flat earth and then prove the ball earth hypothesis, I, despite all of my hard work and efforts was UNABLE to find a single shred of factual and irrefutable evidence to support the existence of the spinning ball earth in our reality.

Thus, I am officially calling on ALL ballers(ball earth believers) from all walks of life, no matter the rank, status or position you hold in this world, without exception! Absolutely everyone is welcome, including and especially, scientists, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, astronauts, everyone aerospace, NASA, RASA, JAXA, ESA(and every other "space" station and program around the world), mathematicians, architects, engineers, surveyors, pilots, sailors, captains, instructors, professors, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and everyone in between! Yes Masons and Jesuits, you are welcome too. Goyim and non-goyim. If you(or ANYONE you know) believe that you have what it takes to prove the spinning ball earth mythos to be an incontestable fact of our reality, please read the following carefully!



$10,000(TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) CASH, WILL BE awarded to ANYONE who can provide ONE piece of FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE evidence to support two things.
A). The CURVATURE of the alleged spinning ball earth
B). The MOTION of the alleged spinning ball earth

Rules, Terms, and Conditions(please read carefully):
Firstly, just to be exceptionally clear,
Factual:
- concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it
- actually occurring
- of, relating to, or characterized by facts
- of the nature of fact; real; actual
Fact:
- a thing that is INDISPUTABLY the case
- something that has actual existence
- an actual occurrence

Irrefutable:
- not capable of being refuted or disproved
- impossible to deny or disprove
- not refutable: incontrovertible

Please keep the definitions of factual and irrefutable in mind when preparing, presenting, and receiving judgement on your evidence! Those two words are the main criteria by which everyone's evidence will be judged.

1). In the comment section below, present ONE(you can do more if you'd like, but at least one) piece of factual and irrefutable evidence for
a). the curvature and
b). the motion
of the alleged spinning ball earth.

2). Each piece of evidence provided, for both the curvature and the motion MUST BE accompanied by an experiment, test, or method proving and showing the way through which you obtained your result.

3). Your experiment, test, or method must be replicable and the same result must be obtained by myself and others in order for your evidence to be considered.

There are many different kinds of experiments, tests and measurements that anyone should be able to do, to easily prove both the curvature and motion of the alleged spinning ball. If you need some ideas for such experiments, please see some examples below of others attempting to find both the curvature and motion of the alleged spinning ball:

- Bedford Level 1838 (curvature)
- Airy’s Failure 1871 (motion)
- Michelson-Morley 1887 (motion)
- Sagnac 1913 (motion)
- Michelson-Gale 1925 (motion)

4). Your evidence will be evaluated and judged using none other than the SCIENTIFIC METHOD itself!

Just a quick reminder for anyone who has forgotten what the Scientific Method is and how it works:
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: a method of research in which
A). a problem is identified,
B). relevant data are gathered,
C). a hypothesis is formulated from these data,
D). the hypothesis is EMPIRICALLY tested and
E). data is analyzed and a conclusion is drawn.

To quickly touch on D - EMPIRICALLY TESTED:
EMPIRICAL:
- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience RATHER THAN THEORY or pure logic
- derived from or guided by EXPERIENCE or EXPERIMENT
- depending upon EXPERIENCE or OBSERVATION
- PROVABLE or VERIFIABLE by EXPERIENCE or EXPERIMENT

Thus, some examples of evidence that WONT qualify:
- i heard it from...
- i saw it on...
- everyone knows this
- the scientific community says so
- NASA said so
- Neil DeGrasse Tyson said so
- the astronauts said so
- the THEORY of gravity said so
- so and so University said so
- so and so scientist said so
- Donald Pettit or Barry Wilmore filmed this from the "ISS"
- evidence that only the "Hubble Space Telescope" or a "satellite" could see
- evidence that only a certain University or "qualified" group of individuals can produce
- PHOTOS: I hate to rule these out but for the sake of saving time, I am going to. Photos can be easily manipulated and thus will not be considered as evidence.

VIDEOS:
I will allow video footage as evidence because videos are harder to manipulate. You can attach a fisheye or wide angle lens and make a flat surface look curved(though this trickery will be exposed as soon as the camera pans up and down), but no matter the lens you fasten to your eyeball or camera, you simply CANNOT make a ball look perfectly flat. To make a ball look flat you would have to either use CGI or heavy post production editing and your fraud will be very easily exposed by the pixelation and distortion of pixels where you pulled your curved ball into a flat surface. This gets even more complicated the more the camera pans/tilts up and down. Thus, you can present video footage and it will be evaluated like all other evidence, using the Scientific Method. If we are unable to obtain the same results, your evidence will unfortunately not pass!

Hopefully you get the idea. Your experiments and tests by which you obtained your evidence must be replicated. I care NOT about what ANYONE says or has seen or heard. If I(and anyone) cannot replicate your experiment and come to your same result, your evidence will NOT qualify.

5). To make things more fair and of course interesting, I will have a special guest judge on the panel, none other than the amazing, smart and very talented, the man, the legend himself, Mr. Eric Dubay! He will join me in empirically testing your evidence and providing the final judgment.

Please read the above rules one more time if you have to. Irrefutable facts of reality and the Scientific Method will be the judges of your evidence. Eric and I will simply be delivering the judgement to you.

6). Please check the thread. If your evidence has already been presented and judged, I will likely just tag you under that comment in the interest of saving time. I may address the same evidence a couple times if need be but unfortunately I don't have time to repeat myself over and over and over again.

7). If you are commenting under someone else's comment, please understand that reply priority will go to the initial commenter. If there will be extra time, myself or Eric, may respond to additional comments but priority will go to the original commenters. If you want to insure that YOUR evidence is seen, please comment it as a new comment and not as a reply to someone else as it may be missed that way.

. If your evidence hasn't been addressed by MYSELF or Eric, please consider your case still open. Judgement on your evidence will ONLY count from myself or Eric, not other commenters.

9). To all my religious folks. Please pay attention to this rule! Though I very much do understand where you may be coming from, for the sake of sanity and keeping focus on flat earth, please refrain from religious debates and arguments. Earth is flat regardless of any religious text or religion saying so. Flat earth, has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with spirituality(truth), which is of course different. I will be issuing future challenges for various commonly accepted religious beliefs so you will have the opportunity to express yourselves then but for the sake of keeping this thread focused on the topic of flat earth, please refrain from religious discussions here. Thank you!

10). I am doing this challenge to help bring attention to this highly important topic. I am NOT doing it to start fights, attacks or arguments. THEREFORE, please refrain from foul language, attacks, and verbal abuse. If I do notice this happening you will be given ONE warning, after which, if you do not comply, you will be disqualified and blocked! I do NOT want to disqualify or block anyone because I want everyone to have an amazing and positive learning experience from everything that will be discussed so please don't make me do it. Keep your discussions civil and professional. Thank you!

11). Have an amazing time! This should be fun and enlightening, more than anything. I want everyone to enjoy this so please contribute positively and we will all have a great time together no matter our differences!

12). This isn't so much a rule but more of a request, if you are inclined to do so, please share this challenge with everyone you know. Together we will make a difference!

If your evidence does NOT qualify or factually and irrefutably prove the spinning ball earth, you will be given an explanation as to why and how that is so. Your evidence will be evaluated based on the criteria above, therefore your explanation will provide the process by which we determined your evidence was NOT valid.

If you DO provide this factual and irrefutable evidence that will once and for all establish that earth is in fact a water bending, ocean curving, spinning, tilting, wobbling and hurtling through infinite space into oblivion BALL, you WILL BE rewarded these $10,000 CASH(yes this is my photo and proof of the existence of the money) because believe me my dear baller friend, if you do, you deserve not just these $10,000 dollars but all of the money in the world that you could possibly ask for. You will be the first person in the history of human existence to prove factually the existence of the spinning ball earth.

For the sake of this challenge however, you will only get $10,000. If you live in the United States and would like a 3 day/2 night trip to Los Angeles, California, I will pay for your travel and stay at The Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills and personally deliver the $10,000 cash to you, filmed live for Facebook and YouTube for the entire world to see. If you are not in the U.S. the money will be either wire transferred to you or converted to bitcoin and sent to you after which I will send you instructions on how to convert it to your home currency.

As a bonus, if you or anyone you know, can demonstrate the bending and/or curving of still water(with a replicable experiment), especially around a spinning ball, you will be awarded an additional $40,000 for a total of $50,000 CASH. I will also reach out to the producers of the top talk shows in LA and ask that they air you and your amazing talent live for the world to see. You will be the first human in the history of humanity to do what the science community claims is happening today, right now, as we speak, with the spinning ball earth!

LAST BUT MOST CERTAINLY NOT LEAST:
I would like to personally challenge and call out Neil deGrasse Tyson. I could care less which degree you have achieved in masonry Neil, nor how much or how well you are respected amongst your "brethren". You are NOT too big to back up your OWN words with factual and irrefutable evidence. I understand that your masters pay you to keep the sheeple goyim(and non goyim) in this perpetual state of mind numbing delusion, thoroughly sedated and deceived, but if you are half a percent of a real man, perhaps for the very first time in your entire life, you can actually prove that you are not a patent fraud and can back up your words with factual and irrefutable evidence. Step up to the plate whether you care for $10,000 or not, and provide evidence for your "officially oblate sPEARoid, slightly wider below the equator than above the equator, chubbier on the bottom spinning pear-shaped" earth!

Please also bring your buddy Joe Rogan with you as well. Maybe the two of you can explain to me and everyone joining this challenge why you two ran away like cowards, from the scheduled Flat Earth debate with Eric Dubay and why after agreeing to the debate, announcing it on his show and scheduling and rescheduling it on his website, why Joe hasn't even so much as attempted to reach out to Eric about it and make it happen? Perhaps you can also explain to everyone why one hour after Joe announced and confirmed the debate with yourself and Eric, Eric's YouTube channel of 7+ years, 135k+ subscribers, and almost 30 million views got terminated and he himself got banned from YouTube? Eric exposing a little too much truth for the Goyim to see? "Goyim awaken, shut it down"? Disgust! The two of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You ran faster than a dog with it's tail between it's legs when it came down to it. You two are scared to death to face Eric man to man because you know the two of you would be exposed as the patent frauds that you are and Neil, your "career" would be over in the most humiliating and embarrassing way imaginable as the whole world would realize the utter lies and deceit you have been shoving down their throats on behalf of your masters! Man up and own up to what you have done and face Eric Dubay in a flat earth debate like it was planned and scheduled, for the whole world to see and hear! Oh and maybe Joe could also explain why he did a complete 180 on his moon landing hoax exposing campaign. From "there's NO WAY people went on the moon, there's no way" to "how can I even argue it?" Shilling much Joe?? "Quit sucking each other off and debate with Eric Dubay." - B.O.B.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Joe Rogan LIE About Eric Dubay Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_ztlKka1Q

Lets settle this once and for all. Is earth a water bending, ocean curving, spinning, tilting, wobbling and hurtling through infinite space and into oblivion BALL(or PEAR, according to Neil deGrasse Tyson), originating from a 13 billion year ago, accidental big bang cosmic SNEEZE or potentially - FART…OR…is earth flat and motionless with everything in the sky revolving around US(as all ancient civilizations knew since the beginning of recorded human history), intelligently and divinely created, making us the crown and center of creation? Is there a greater purpose to humanity, earth and everything on it than we have been MISled to believe and is THAT why we have been so exceptionally and so thoroughly deceived?

We're about to find out! Stay tuned!

“There are two ways to be fooled! One is to believe what ISN’T true; the other is to refuse to accept what IS true!” - Soren Kierkegaard

The TRUTH fears no investigation!

Thank you for reading and participating! Good luck!

(This thread will be left open for any ballers who think they can prove their unsubstantiated claims)

This is amazing and perfectly timed! Came right up as I was sitting down with my coffee this morning. Absolutely EXCELLENT. I can't wait to see how this unfolds. Prepare for people to call BS on the money instead of, you know, supplying proof. TRUE ZETETICISM or bust (the ball)!

+1 This is now my favorite flat-earth vid! Excellent job guys!

This is something that i was hoping gonna happen, using them own method-money, to bring more attention towards this very important topic, nice job Jay and Eric.

Challenge looks very authentic and i think we need to support that intiative as much as possible; translate it or post it to tv stations, radio and newspapers - to make a little bit more "noise" about it.
I'm affraid if we will wait to long, Controlled Opposition might play them role and put something similar to cover this Challlenge.

Greetings,

I am submitting the following experiment by JonahTheScientist (FlatEarthLunacy.com) as proof that the Earth rotates, and is spherical in shape. Please consider this to be an entry for "The 10,000 Dollar Baller Challenge"

As described in the article below, measure how much a standard 500-gram weight actually weighs, at various locations (north or south) on the Earth. The weight will change in accordance with the rotational centripetal force applied to it. At the North Pole it will weigh 500-grams. At the equator it will weight 498.2696-grams, because the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation tends to throw it off. That makes it a tiny bit lighter.

How much you weigh depends upon where you are on the Earth, because its a rotating sphere.
http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/295-how-much-you-weigh-depends-upon-where-you-are-on-the-earth-because-it-s-a-rotating-sphere

Should this entry win, please send the $10,000 to the American Cancer Society, as a donation. Kind regards, Michael Chranston mcranston2134@gmail.com

Magnetic attraction, not spin.

MChranston

1) The amount things weigh at various places across the plane does not in any way provide irrefutable proof of Earth's curvature or motion.

2) The experiment needs to be something testable and demonstrable by everyone, so requiring people to travel to the North/South Pole or into "outer-space" to prove your point is not acceptable as point 3 stated: "Your experiment, test, or method must be replicable and the same result must be obtained by myself and others in order for your evidence to be considered."

Greetings, If you believe that an object's weight cannot change by traveling north-south on a giant spinning sphere, you have no understanding of physics at all. Look up how centrifugal force operates.
The experiment presented is easy, testable and reproducible by anyone.
Just drive from Miami Florida to Detroit Michigan. Or drive anywhere in the world (north or south from your home) for at least 500-miles, for reliable results.
That is not asking anyone to go to the poles or into space.
You are not following the scientific method as you said you would - because you want to prohibit the experiment from ever being conducted.
For the scientific method, first the experiment is performed, and then the results are evaluated. Why you doing it backwards?
If you do not allow this experiment to go forward, the entire world will see that you are prejudging and manipulating this fake $10,000 challenge.
Anyone who has completed a high school science class, and there are million and millions and millions in the world who have, know about centrifugal force, and will laugh at you forever more.
Your understanding of physics is very deficient. You are incorrect. Go ask any high school science teacher about it.
Your $10,000 challenge is a fake and you are a fraud. kind regards, Michael

If the Earth is a spinning ball, there has to be measurable curvature in some fashion.

Where is the curvature, and how can we measure it?

Frenetic Zetetic wrote:If the Earth is a spinning ball, there has to be measurable curvature in some fashion.

Where is the curvature, and how can we measure it?

You can perform this experiment on the same ~500 mile north/south drive proposed by MChranston.

NOTE: This experiment does not attempt to prove the earth is spinning, only that it has measurable curvature.

STEP 1: Establish to your satisfaction that the apparent relative motion (ARM) of stars is a) circular and b) around an axis inclined to the vertical.

This is readily achieved with an inexpensive equatorial-mount telescope. Set one up according to the instructions. In essence, this involves spirit-leveling the tripod and pointing one of the two rotational axes of the telescope at the Pole Star (strictly speaking, at a point very close to it).

This done, you will find it is possible to track the ARM of any star in the sky over the course of a night by locking the declination axis and rotating the telescope only around its Right Ascension axis. You will also see that all stars' ARMs are equal and constant (in degrees/hour).

By simple inspection of the way the telescope rotates, you can see that the ARMs of all stars are circular trajectories around a single axis, and that this axis is at an angle to the vertical at your location.

Make a note of the angle from the horizontal of the RA-axis. (Incidentally, you will find it corresponds to your latitude according to an atlas, which can help you when setting up)

STEP 2: Establish to your satisfaction that a circle is only visually circular when viewed on or close to its axis.

You can use a peg and a piece of string to mark out a decent-sized circle on the ground, and then use a ladder to stand and look at/photograph it from above. You will see that from directly above the circle (on-axis) it is visually circular.

Measure the height of your eyes from the ground, and move the ladder a significant fraction of that distance (70-100%) off to the side. Stand on the ladder and look at the circle again. It will appear distinctly elliptical.

From 1 and 2:

At this point, if you accept the premise that the Pole Star appears directly overhead when standing at the north pole, the proof is complete:

a) The visual circularity of every star's ARM from your location means you CANNOT be very far from the axis, relative to the (unknown) distance of the stars. So however far you believe yourself to live from the north pole, that can only be a small fraction of your distance to the stars.

b) On a flat earth, 'up' is the same direction everywhere, so the only available explanation for the pole star not being overhead at your location is that you ARE a long way from the axis, relative to the (unknown) distance of the stars.

a) and b) are mutually exclusive. Regardless of how far away the stars are, you cannot simultaneously be a large fraction AND a tiny fraction of that distance from the north pole.

To reconcile these observations it is necessary to allow for 'up' to mean different directions at your location and the north pole. This allows the pole star to deviate from overhead at your location without requiring your distance to the north pole to be a large fraction of the distance to the stars.

If you do not believe the Pole Star appears overhead at the North Pole, or you fancy a holiday, continue with the experiment.

Travel a substantial distance north or south from your location - let's go with 500 miles.

Set up the telescope again.

You will find that this time the angle of the RA axis from the horizontal (pointing at the Pole Star) will be ~7 degrees more (or less, depending on which way you drove). The ARMs of all stars will still be circular, but the axis will now be at 7 degrees more or less of a tilt from the vertical.

The fact the ARMs of the stars are still circular means that the 500 miles you have travelled can only be a tiny fraction of the distance to the stars. Yet the Pole Star has deviated a full 7 degrees more (or less) from the vertical. These observations cannot be reconciled unless you allow 'vertical' to be different at either end of the journey - ergo, the earth is curved.

Look up at the ceiling he says, and see how the floor is curved!

You learn nothing measurable about the ground by looking up to the sky.

Your experiment simply shows the declination of the Pole Star as an observer moves South; something heliocentrists have been attempting (and failing) to use as proof of the ball-Earth since Aristotle:

Aristotle’s final point of evidence offered for his spherical Earth theory was the appearance of Polaris and other stars to gradually decline overhead as an observer travels southwards. He argued that the gradual declination and eventual disappearance beyond the horizon of certain stars and constellations as one traveled southwards was evidence that the observer was traveling over a convex curved surface. Similar to the ships disappearing over the horizon argument, Aristotle posited that the horizon line was the literal curvature of his spherical Earth, and the stars which declined and disappeared beyond it became invisible because a mass of curved Earth existed between them and the observer. In actual fact, however, the gradual declination of objects in the sky towards the horizon is merely a product of the law of perspective on plane surfaces. As any art student of point perspective knows, the human eye views the world in a pyramidal shape so that when looking down a long hallway, the floor appears to rise, the ceiling appears to sink, and the walls appear to narrow into a point at the center of the observer’s view. Of course, the dimensions of the hallway remain constant for its entire length; The floor does not actually rise, the ceiling does not actually sink, nor do the walls actually close in; but to the human eye everything is perceived this way. Similarly when the Sun, Moon, airplanes or clouds appear to sink towards the horizon as they move away from us, they are not actually losing altitude and slowly approaching sea-level. They are in fact maintaining the same altitude except they are moving away from you and so the law of perspective makes them appear to sink.

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/the-history-of-flat-earth/

“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/the-fixed-pole-star/

Admin wrote:Look up at the ceiling he says, and see how the floor is curved!

You learn nothing measurable about the ground by looking up to the sky.

Assertion without evidence. Disregarded.

Your experiment simply shows the declination of the Pole Star as an observer moves South; something heliocentrists have been attempting (and failing) to use as proof of the ball-Earth since Aristotle:

Both this statement and Winship's alleged rebuttal fail to address the key element of my proof: the persistent circularity of ARM at all latitudes. Winship's failure can be illustrated most effectively with a simple extension to his experiment:

If we select a flat street a mile long, containing two rows of lamps, spaced such that the distance between adjacent lamps is the same as the distance between those facing each other across the road, and we risk so much as to lie down in the road at the bisection of four lamps looking upward, we shall see that those four lamps closest to us visually occupy the corners of a regular square, its every side and angle equal. A photograph taken from such a position will confirm as much.

If we now sit up, choose instead four lamps a hundred yards distant, and draw imaginary lines between them (or once again expose a photographic plate and apply pen and ruler to the result) we shall see that those four lamps - as equally spaced in truth as those surrounding us - will not conform to a perfect square but will instead occupy the vertices of a compressed trapezoid: the lower edge markedly shorter than the upper and those to the left and right stunted and converging.

Should such a street fail to present itself, the same experiment may be achieved with several elevated torches and a brisk walk. Nor need the lamps be evenly or regularly spaced, or at equal heights: arrange them however we will, moving laterally out from beneath them unfailingly corrupts their original form. Only the very slightest dislocations of the observer, mere inches at best, may be suffered without inducing distortion, and such movements are in no way capable of depressing our lamps close to the horizon. To bring them truly low we must take that brisk walk, and in taking it destroy utterly any pattern we may have fancied among them while they glowed overhead.

This evidence stands in stark contrast to the immutable Constellations, whose edges and interior angles remain invariant at all longitudes and latitudes. The lack of discernible distortion proves beyond doubt that any lateral motion endured by them or us, over the course of a night or a world-spanning adventure, must be - as were the meager inches tolerated by our experiment - dwarfed entirely by their altitude and incapable of bringing them low.

With lateral motion excluded as a cause, only rotation from the vertical remains - and since a trusted observer left at our starting point will report no deviation of the Pole Star from its appointed place it can only be what we call 'vertical' that rotates, as we travel north or south, in such a regular fashion as to describe the differential of a sphere.

TL;DR: You're both wrong.

You have again failed to prove curvature or motion with your wall of irrelevant text.

Peeling wrote:

Frenetic Zetetic wrote:If the Earth is a spinning ball, there has to be measurable curvature in some fashion.

Where is the curvature, and how can we measure it?

You can perform this experiment on the same ~500 mile north/south drive proposed by MChranston.

NOTE: This experiment does not attempt to prove the earth is spinning, only that it has measurable curvature.

STEP 1: Establish to your satisfaction that the apparent relative motion (ARM) of stars is a) circular and b) around an axis inclined to the vertical.

This is readily achieved with an inexpensive equatorial-mount telescope. Set one up according to the instructions. In essence, this involves spirit-leveling the tripod and pointing one of the two rotational axes of the telescope at the Pole Star (strictly speaking, at a point very close to it).

This done, you will find it is possible to track the ARM of any star in the sky over the course of a night by locking the declination axis and rotating the telescope only around its Right Ascension axis. You will also see that all stars' ARMs are equal and constant (in degrees/hour).

By simple inspection of the way the telescope rotates, you can see that the ARMs of all stars are circular trajectories around a single axis, and that this axis is at an angle to the vertical at your location.

Make a note of the angle from the horizontal of the RA-axis. (Incidentally, you will find it corresponds to your latitude according to an atlas, which can help you when setting up)

STEP 2: Establish to your satisfaction that a circle is only visually circular when viewed on or close to its axis.

You can use a peg and a piece of string to mark out a decent-sized circle on the ground, and then use a ladder to stand and look at/photograph it from above. You will see that from directly above the circle (on-axis) it is visually circular.

Measure the height of your eyes from the ground, and move the ladder a significant fraction of that distance (70-100%) off to the side. Stand on the ladder and look at the circle again. It will appear distinctly elliptical.

From 1 and 2:

At this point, if you accept the premise that the Pole Star appears directly overhead when standing at the north pole, the proof is complete:

a) The visual circularity of every star's ARM from your location means you CANNOT be very far from the axis, relative to the (unknown) distance of the stars. So however far you believe yourself to live from the north pole, that can only be a small fraction of your distance to the stars.

b) On a flat earth, 'up' is the same direction everywhere, so the only available explanation for the pole star not being overhead at your location is that you ARE a long way from the axis, relative to the (unknown) distance of the stars.

a) and b) are mutually exclusive. Regardless of how far away the stars are, you cannot simultaneously be a large fraction AND a tiny fraction of that distance from the north pole.

To reconcile these observations it is necessary to allow for 'up' to mean different directions at your location and the north pole. This allows the pole star to deviate from overhead at your location without requiring your distance to the north pole to be a large fraction of the distance to the stars.

If you do not believe the Pole Star appears overhead at the North Pole, or you fancy a holiday, continue with the experiment.

Travel a substantial distance north or south from your location - let's go with 500 miles.

Set up the telescope again.

You will find that this time the angle of the RA axis from the horizontal (pointing at the Pole Star) will be ~7 degrees more (or less, depending on which way you drove). The ARMs of all stars will still be circular, but the axis will now be at 7 degrees more or less of a tilt from the vertical.

The fact the ARMs of the stars are still circular means that the 500 miles you have travelled can only be a tiny fraction of the distance to the stars. Yet the Pole Star has deviated a full 7 degrees more (or less) from the vertical. These observations cannot be reconciled unless you allow 'vertical' to be different at either end of the journey - ergo, the earth is curved.

All you've done is quite literally reverse-explain how the human eye perceives perspective, in a very roundabout fashion.

You just proved the sky is very, very large and goes beyond your visible perspective, thus creating the illusion of "bending away" from an observer.



Lamps in a row going down a street appear to get closer to the ground because of perspective, not because the ground is bending away. You can look down a hallway and see the floor, ceiling, and walls "coming in" - due to the limitations of perspective. The hallway isn't curving away from you.

Why can't we measure the ground bending and curving over a set distance? Why does the math we're given (8 inches per mile squared) yield no appreciable curvature?

Why do we have to look at the sky and then deduce information from there? Why can't we visibly measure the supposedly obvious curvature of Earth right under our feet with a laser, level, long distance, etc?

I love this challenge. Gets right to the heart of the matter. Where's the proof of a spinning globe that would hold up under the scrutiny of a court operating under strict rules of evidence?

In addition to  the other valid responses showing the #LogicalFallacies of this #GlobeGobbler, we can add the following :

STEP 2: Establish to your satisfaction that a circle is only visually circular when viewed on or close to its axis.

Nope. Fail.

When is a circle a circle ?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=17q3lR6Qu6mOD9N8uxJN-nKE7cFwp_bAL

On your flat earth there is nothing between the southern hemisphere (whatever you call that part of earth) and the Polaris. People livinh on the southern hemisphere should be able to see Polaris when they look up but they cant even with a telescope. Isnt this enough to prove your model is wrong?

Yowassup wrote:
On your flat earth
People livinh on the southern hemisphere should be able to see Polaris
Isnt this enough to prove your model is wrong?

Polaris could be seen by ship navigators as far South as the Tropic of Capricorn, this caused problems for the "Church of Heliocentricism" who in the late 19th century started claiming that the Earth "axis is tilted 23.4 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the Sun."

90 - 23.4 = 66.6

First of all, as Schpankme pointed out, yes they can:

“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

And secondly, the fact you cannot see every star proves perspective, not globularity:

The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.

“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)

First of all the church of heliocentriam doesnt exist and Earth's axial tilt was known much before the 19th century. This is from wikipedia: Earth's obliquity may have been reasonably accurately measured as early as 1100 BC in India and China. The ancient Greeks had good measurements of the obliquity since about 350 BC, when Pytheas of Marseilles measured the shadow of a gnomon at the summer solstice. About 830 AD, the Caliph Al-Mamun of Baghdad directed his astronomers to measure the obliquity, and the result was used in the Arab world for many years. In 1437, Ulugh Beg determined the Earth's axial tilt as 23°30′17″

Also i dont know why you claim we can see polaris from south of the equator. Ask anyone living on the southern hemisphere for a picture of it. They wont be able to spot it in the sky.

You claimed some people have seen polaris as far south as the tropic of capricorn yet this just seems like hearsay. I don't see a concrete proof that you can see it from the southern hemisphere in your answer. It is just someone saying some people saw it.

Yowassup wrote:
the church of heliocentriam
Earth's axial tilt was known much before the 19th century

This is from wikipedia:
1100 BC in India and China
ancient Greeks 350 BC
Pytheas of Marseilles
830 AD, the Caliph Al-Mamun of Baghdad
1437, Ulugh Beg

some people have seen polaris as far south as the tropic of capricorn
this just seems like hearsay

You used "Wikipedia" for proof that "Axial Tilt" was invented long before the 1900's, yet you provide no references from the periods quoted, "this just seems like hearsay".  This hardly matters, for you've also not provided proof for when or who it was that adopted and promoted Heliocentricism to the illiterate public, prior to the invention of the printing press, and educational system.

1543
May 24: Nicolaus Copernicus dies.

1572
Jesuit Christopher Clavius recommends reforming the calendar based on Copernican Heliocentricism.

1582
Heliocentricism as invented by Copernicus is used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar.
  Institutes Gregorian calendar in March, 1582.

1601
Telescope invented

1609
Johannes Kepler published his Heliocentric laws of planetary motion, based on the writings of Tycho Brahe.
  Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) died prior to the invention of the Telescope.

1610
Galileo Galilei, claims to see Spaceballs orbiting about one another.
  Galileo is a beneficiary of the Jesuit payroll.

1611
Jesuit Christopher Clavius, confirms Galileo’s observations of planetary motion.
  Jesuits claim that Lights they observe through their Telescopes are in fact Spaceballs that orbit about one another.

"This hardly matters, for you've also not provided proof". Well i think we both dont believe eachothers sources are credible so lets stop arguing about history and go back to Polaris.

In fact i would like to expand my claim. Everyone living on the flat earth should be able to see all the stars on the dome yet in reality different stars are visible from different parts of the earth. If the earth was flat and all stars were on/in the dome above us every star should have been visible to every observer on Earth. I am not talking about just Polaris.

Example(just to prove you can't see every star all around the world): Alpha Centauri is circumpolar, so it’s visible year-round south of the equator, but it’s at its highest from March to September. You might also see it north of the equator: If you're at latitude 29°N at most (think Texas or northern Florida), Alpha Centauri can sometimes be visible a few degrees above the southern horizon in May. I think you are living in the US so try to spot this star in the sky.It is one of the brightest stars in the sky. It is in the star constellation centaurus. Which is not visible to most of US.

Your assumption that all stars should be visible from all points has already been disproved above. The declination of the Pole Star as an observer moves Southwards proves perspective limits our ability to see every star from every point on Earth simultaneously: