The Measurable Non-Curvature of the Flat Earth

NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight-forward matter of measurements and calculations.



For example, the distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles.  If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end!  It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor.  This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles.  Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!



“In the Times newspaper of Monday, Oct. 16, 1854, in an account of her Majesty’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull, the following paragraph occurs: ‘Their attention was first naturally directed to a gigantic tower which rises from the center pier to the height of 300 feet, and can be seen 60 miles out at sea.’  The 60 miles if nautical, and this is always understood when referring to distances at sea, would make 70 statute miles, to which the fall of 8 inches belongs, and as all observations at sea are considered to be made at an elevation of 10 feet above the water, for which four miles must be deducted from the whole distance, 66 statute miles will remain, the square of which multiplied by 8 inches, gives a declination towards the tower of 2,904 feet; deducting from this the altitude of the tower, 300 feet, we obtain the startling conclusion that the tower should be at the distance at which it is visible, more than 2,600 feet below the horizon!”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (174)



Indoctrinated naysayers will often retort that light refraction off the water’s surface could account for such phenomena.  To begin with, the idea that we cannot differentiate between the refracted light of something and the thing itself is preposterous, but even assuming we couldn’t, surveyors’ general allowance for refraction is only 1/12th the altitude of the object observed, making it a completely implausible explanation.  Using the previous example of 2,600 feet divided by 12 gives 206, which subtracted from 2,600 leaves 2,384 feet that the tower should have remained below the horizon.
                                     


“In September, 1898, I received a letter from Australia in which the writer says: ‘In the year 1872 I was on board the ship ‘Thomas Wood,’ Capt. Gibson from China to London.  Owing to making a long passage, we ran short of provisions, and so short after rounding the Cape that the Captain spoke of putting into St. Helena for a supply.  It was then my hobby to get the first glimpse of land, make a survey, just as the sun would be rising.  The island was clearly in view, well on the starboard bow.  I reported this to Capt. Gibson.  He disbelieved me, saying it was impossible as we were 75 miles distant.  He, however, offered me paper and pencil to sketch the land I saw.  This I did.  He then said, ‘you are right,’ and shaped his course accordingly.  I had never seen the Island before and could not have described the shape of it had I not seen it.  St. Helena is a high volcanic island, and if my informant had seen the top only, there would have to be an allowance made for the height of the land, but as he sketched the island he must have seen the whole of it, which should have been 3,650 feet below the line of sight, if the world be a globe.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (21)



In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away!  The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away.  He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard.  Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to be well over 4 miles below the line of sight!



“Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast ‘hill’ - of water!  The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a ‘hill of water’ more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such ‘science’ as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.  Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! This is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (18, 28)

“Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals.  South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles.  The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields.  Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot.  The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”  -Rev. T. Milner, “Atlas of Physical Geography”



“These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is level, and that therefore the world is not a globe.  And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same uniformity of evidence against the popular view.  In ‘Nature and Man,’ by Professor W.B. Carpenter, article ‘The Deep Sea and its Contents,’ the writer says:  ‘If the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas … The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared.’  This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (23)

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/02/flat-earth-curvature.html

Just read a horrible Flat Earth hit piece on Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinknudson/2016/01/27/breaking-ancient-news-the-earth-is-not-flat/

It has a horribly fish eyed "photo" of Earth from 120,000 feet. It's a huge joke to these useful idiots to try to prove the round Earth with 1 picture and an ancient flawed mathematical formula.

A really great gem from this article:
"The next thing to do is to climb the mountain. If you’ve stood on top of a big enough hill, you notice that the horizon curves down from where you are. You can then measure the angle of declination;"

WTF "big enough hills" has this yahoo ever climbed anything or even been in a tall building? I scale mountains all the time and this horizon curvature he speaks of is non-existent, fly a plane, launch a rocket, it doesn't matter how high you go the horizon is FLAT. They think they can just say the curve exists and then show a doctored photo and call it a day.

His example is 100% flawed, trying to measure curvature from a line of sight to horizon is open to an ocean of discrepancies, ya know like topography. Maybe there are places where the ground slightly curves down, but for every 1 of those there is another where the ground curves up. Also there is this tiny thing called the OCEAN that disproves ALL of these curvature examples. They use line of sight mathematics to prove curvature but ignore line of sight when you can see impossible distances for a 25,000 mile circumference Earth and chalk that up to a mirage.

In the article's example an ancient Pakistani mathematician, Biruni, climbed a WHOPPING 305.1 meters to his "mountain" peak which just happens to be exactly 1001 feet, that is barely a hill in Utah. What a joke, I climb 12,000 foot mountains every summer, I find myself to be far more qualified to exact judgement on the shape of our Earth than this ancient "genius" Biruni. This math system is flawed because it doesn't prove a sphere, it ASSUMES a sphere and then calculates a measurement upon that assumption to give a radius.

Great comment damnice.

They're getting every outlet of the mainstream press to ridicule the flat Earth in a desperate bid to undermine it, but the only thing these morons can muster up as 'proof' are photoshopped, admittedly composite images from NASA.

The past few days I've been thinking about a method to measure a supposed curvature where they can't come up with silly excuses like "superior mirage" and alike.

So my question is: Would it be possible to stretch a rope over the distance of 2.5 miles?

If so, the rope should touch the ground/sea after 1.2 miles, but if it doesn't that should be undeniable prove that there is no curvature, correct?

ProGenesis wrote:The past few days I've been thinking about a method to measure a supposed curvature where they can't come up with silly excuses like "superior mirage" and alike.

So my question is: Would it be possible to stretch a rope over the distance of 2.5 miles?

If so, the rope should touch the ground/sea after 1.2 miles, but if it doesn't that should be undeniable prove that there is no curvature, correct?

Well, the establishment already knows its flat, the ball only exists in the mind:

By any measure, Florida takes the prize for the flattest state in the nation because the highest point in the state is only 345 feet above sea level.  Then Illinois, North Dakota, Louisiana, Minnesota and Delaware follow. Kansas merely ranks seventh in flatness.

The findings appear in the current issue of the Geographical Review, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Geographical Society. Dobson hopes the research will help dispel the myth that Kansas is so formidably flat.

Airplanes Never Adjust for Curvature of Earth

Flat water. Mountain 100 miles away



Flat or Globe ? wrote:
So here is a video that shows the mountains that are 100 miles away and should be well below the horizon but yet I can see them. Many think that refraction has something to do with this and that is why i can see them. I don't think that is the case. If it were, there would be days that I could see it and days when I could not see it. Every time I have gone out there I have seen the same thing. curvature is a lie. Oh and if you say I just proved it to be round because it shows the mountain smaller go look into perspective and how tall that mountain should be in my view at 100 miles away. It should be less than 1 degree off of level viewing the entire 5500 feet of the mountain

Good ole Bob Ross with some instructional wisdom for a seascape painting
after he removes his masking tape for the ocean horizon:






Then he gives us some advice on how to handle globe earth shills:

Hey Eric

Otto here from Hungary. What if we do not try to proof and meassure the missing vertical curvature, but we do meassure the existing horizontal curve. I mean, if people say i go to east it means practicaly that they follow a circle around north pole and smoothly they walk left. If someone send a laser beam from his position to east and an another person start moving to east following a sensitive compass after a while he will be left from the laser. What do you think about it?

The whole thing is about a ten minute read and I would truly appreciate any feedback.

Inspired by Brian Mullin, I posted the original idea awhile back; it had a couple hundred views with no replies and then I couldn't find it.

If anyone remembers it, you'll see we've developed it further. This is my plea not only to the FE community, but to anyone out there who might want to, and also be able to help.

I suck at web pages... it looks best on a computer, but still works on phones from what I can tell.

Here it is:
https://11thousandfeet.com/

Thanks for reading and help you might offer.

Hi spinningwaterrockhaha, you can do it on a public site, a land, a canal or a lake. There are enough evidence by Eric Dubay to start official conversations with open minded pilots, water transport employees, all sort of engineers, architects, scientists.. In order to change school and Uni curriculum and take our world back. Cheers

Bicenie wrote:Hi spinningwaterrockhaha, you can do it on a public site, a land, a canal or a lake. There are enough evidence by Eric Dubay to start official conversations with open minded pilots, water transport employees, all sort of engineers, architects, scientists.. In order to change school and Uni curriculum and take our world back. Cheers

Actually, it will not work. There is always, regardless of force, the catenary:
catenary, in mathematics, a curve that describes the shape of a flexible hanging chain or cable—the name derives from the Latin catenaria (“chain”). Any freely hanging cable or string assumes this shape, also called a chainette, if the body is of uniform mass per unit of length and is acted upon solely by gravity.

But, I have found an incredibly strong fishing braid that has a "specific gravity," which is laughably a measure of density, of .98. Water's specific gravity is 1. This means we could do the same thing, just under the water level on both ends and we could come much closer to pulling that line perfectly taut.

If anyone could find a suitable line with a specific gravity of exactly 1, that would be ideal.

And as I have thought more and more about this entire issue, I have realized yet another problem and I am not sure how touched on this issue is, but I do feel this is important to realize.


Let’s assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere* with a circumference of 25,000 miles (today, modern astronomy claims 24,901). This gives us an approximate diameter of 8,000 miles (today, modern astronomy claims 7,917.5) which means that over 4,000 miles, or ¼ of the way around Earth, that there must be a drop due to curvature equal to 4,000 miles (today, modern astronomy claims 3,959).

Because 4,000 X 4 =16,000, there must be 16,000 miles of curvature around a sphere with a circumference of 25,000 miles.

This is where things get really awkward…

Example 1:
If, on the equator, we position 250 people 100 miles apart, trigonometry dictates that they will each measure about 1¼ miles of curvature between them.
250 X 1.25 = 312.5

How have we gone from measuring 16,000 miles of curvature to now measuring just 312.5 miles of total curvature on the same exact 25,000 mile in circumference sphere?

Example 2:
If, on the equator, we position 25,000 people one mile apart, trigonometry dictates that they will each measure 8 inches of curvature between them.
25,000 X 8 = 200,000

Now we have we gone from measuring 16,000 miles of total curvature, to measuring 312.5 miles of total curvature, to measuring only 200,000 inches or just a tad over 3 miles of total curvature for the exact same 25,000 mile in circumference sphere?!?

*According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, although the Earth today has become an oblate spheroid that has become pear shaped as well, the difference from a true sphere is so miniscule that, “if you had a gigantic finger, and if you rubbed it across Earth’s surface (oceans and all), Earth would feel as smooth as a cue ball. Expensive globes that portray raised portions of Earth’s land masses to indicate mountain ranges are grossly exaggerating reality.”

For reference: