Good and bad proofs about Flat Earth

At first, when I realized the Earth could be flat, it was a great surprise. I felt excited at that idea. Then I started surfing the internet and read Eric Dubay’s books.  Honest, I’m grateful to him, for sure. He has worked so much to spread the truth about flat earth.  However, some of the proofs there exposed, as I felt myself more than once, were not totally convincing. I have to confess, some of them  I can only now completely understand.

During my subsequent researches I found some other author and many books exposing evidences that initially didn’t appear so obvious.  In this article I will describe a few, trying to clear them a bit. At the end of this article, as I hope, you will be able  to understand better some of the proofs that are often quoted as supporting the Flat Earth hypothesis.

Rivers going upward

One case is about rivers that on a Globe would sometimes appear to run uphill.

I quote here from Dubay’s book “The flat Earth Conspiracy” that remakes David Scott “Terra Firma”.

“Whoever heard of a river in any part of its course flowing uphill? Yet this is  what would be necessary  to do were the Earth a Globe. Rivers, like the Mississippi, flow from the North southwards towards the Equator. They would need, according to modern astronomic theory, to run upwards. This would be due to the fact the Earth at the Equator is said to bulge out considerably. In other words, there it is higher than at any other part. Thus the Mississippi in its immense course of over 3000miles, would have to ascend 11 miles before it reached the Gulf of Mexico”

I’ll quote an article taken from the blog Aplanetruth.info. Here’s the link of the article:

#2 Is the Earth a Sphere? The Great Rivers

“The Nile, longest river in the world, is  about 4,160 mi (6,695 km). The Nile flows northward. It drains  about one tenth of Africa. This will include parts of Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Congo (Kinshasa).

As you can see from the elevation chart, the Nile runs in a desert basin. If half circumference of the Earth is 12,000, this means that the Nile would have to descend while traveling North some 16 miles, but it doesn’t. The Earth cannot be a sphere.”

In the past I didn’t clearly understand this proof. I was thinking that they claimed that rivers go uphill due to the curvature of the globe. “This is not possible!” I was thinking.

http://earthmeasured.com/paradox-gravity-not-respecting-energy-conservation-principle/

In the article The paradox of gravity not respecting the energy conservation principle (here above you can  click the link)

I have already  written about the gravity potential . Below is the formula.

where G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the Earth, m2 is the mass of the water of the river. Finally,  r is the distance from the center of the Earth. Obviously, when the river starts its course it is on a mountain. E.g.: the Nile spring is at 1134m on the sea level. On the contrary,  the outfall is at 0 meters on the sea level. The difference of altitude gives to the water the energy to move till the sea.

The curvature has no meaning on this formula. It creates equipotential surfaces that are spheres and not planes. This is the reason why the curvature has no importance. The Newton formula generates equipotential spherical surfaces because the gravitational force is a central force.

Then, concerning this point, some week ago, I was corrected by a Flat – Earther.

So I’ve done some more research and finally I’ve understood. Really I have to say that this subject is a good evidence proving  the Earth it is not a globe. Here I’ll give an explanation of what I have understood.

This image is highlighting the difference of radiuses between the equator and the pole. The difference is about 21 km.

 

globe difference radiuses

Let’s imagine a river running from South to North. One  example  could be the Nile. It runs more than 6000kms in the northern hemisphere. Since from the equator to the north pole there are 12000kms, the river would have to go downhill. The gradient for the half of those 21 km would be of 10,5kms. That is pretty different from the 16 miles mentioned in the site aplanetruth, but it is however a remarquable gradient.

With this explanation I can completely agree! I’m probably a bit slow to catch on (it took me one year and half to understand) but at the end I got there. In the same way the Mississippi that runs for more than 3000kms southward should go uphill for  almost 6kms of altitude (one quarter of 21kms, less than the 11 miles mentioned in Terra Firma).

Clouds behind Sun and Moon

clouds behind moons

In the image above you can see a phenomenon well known to Flat Earthers: clouds behind the sun. Similar images  are often used to prove that the sun is very near to the Earth and very small.

In my opinion these are fake images. I have in fact exposed many times in the blog important data about the sun. In its lowest orbit on the cancer tropic, it has a height of 3330kms over the Earth. But here I’ll add some interesting information by NASA, that states the following:

The Sun’s mass is 333,000 times that of the Earth

(NASA Sun Fact Sheet).

 

Sun/Earth Comparison.

Here below is a table  showing a few official sun/earth comparison data according to the NASA Sun Fact Sheet

Sun/Earth Comparison

 

Bulk parameters


Sun   

Earth   
Ratio
(Sun/Earth)
Mass (1024 kg) 1,988,500. 5.9724 333,000.
GM (x 106 km3/s2) 132,712. 0.39860 333,000.
Volume (1012 km3) 1,412,000. 1.083 1,304,000.
Volumetric mean radius (km) 695,700. 6371. 109.2
Mean density (kg/m3) 1408. 5514. 0.255
Surface gravity (eq.) (m/s2) 274.0 9.78 28.0
Escape velocity (km/s) 617.6 11.19 55.2
Ellipticity 0.00005 0.0034 0.015
Moment of inertia (I/MR2) 0.070 0.3308 0.212
Visual magnitude V(1,0) -26.74 -3.86
Absolute magnitude +4.83
Luminosity (1024 J/s) 382.8
Mass conversion rate (106 kg/s) 4260.
Mean energy production (10-3 J/kg) 0.1925
Surface emission (106 J/m2s) 62.94
Spectral type G2 V

Model values at center of Sun:Central pressure:     2.477 x 1011 barCentral temperature:  1.571 x 107 KCentral density:      1.622 x 105 kg/m3

Rotational and Orbital parameters


Sun   

Earth   
Ratio
(Sun/Earth)
Sidereal rotation period (hrs)* 609.12 23.9345 25.449
Obliquity to ecliptic (deg.) 7.25 23.44 0.309
Speed relative to nearby stars (km/s) 19.4

*This is the adopted period at 16 deg. latitude – the actual rotation rate varies with latitude L as:
( 14.37 – 2.33 sin2 L – 1.56 sin4 L ) deg/day

North Pole of Rotation

Right Ascension: 286.13Declination    :  63.87Reference Date : 1.5 Jan 2000 (JD 2451545.0)

Sun Observational Parameters

Apparent diameter from Earth        At 1 A.U.(seconds of arc)  1919.        Maximum (seconds of arc)   1952.        Minimum (seconds of arc)   1887.Distance from Earth        Mean (106 km)              149.6        Minimum (106 km)           147.1        Maximum (106 km)           152.1

Solar Magnetic Field

Typical magnetic field strengths for various parts of the Sun  Polar Field:  1 – 2 Gauss Sunspots:  3000 GaussProminences:  10 – 100 GaussChromospheric plages:  200 GaussBright chromospheric network:  25 GaussEphemeral (unipolar) active regions:  20 Gauss

Solar Atmosphere

Surface Gas Pressure (top of photosphere): 0.868 mb Pressure at bottom of photosphere (optical depth = 1): 125 mbEffective temperature: 5772 KTemperature at top of photosphere:  4400 KTemperature at bottom of photosphere:  6600 KTemperature at top of chromosphere:  ~30,000 KPhotosphere thickness:  ~500 kmChromosphere thickness:  ~2500 kmSun Spot Cycle:  11.4 yr. Photosphere Composition:     Major elements: H – 90.965%, He – 8.889%    Minor elements (ppm): O – 774, C – 330, Ne – 112, N – 102                         Fe – 43, Mg – 35, Si – 32, S – 15

Mass (1024 kg) 1,988,500. 5.9724 333,000.
GM (x 106 km3/s2) 132,712. 0.39860 333,000.

I consider this  last notation by NASA of great importance. It is an evident hint that shows  they are aware of the real measures of the earth and know which is the height of the cone of the sun. At its inferior basis it reaches a height over the Earth of 3330 km.

But now let’s make some research about clouds. What is the maximum height clouds can reach?

 

Wikipedia,  about clouds, states:

“High clouds form at altitudes of 3,000 to 7,600 m (10,000 to 25,000 ft) in the polar regions, 5,000 to 12,200 m (16,500 to 40,000 ft) in the temperate regions and 6,100 to 18,300 m (20,000 to 60,000 ft) in the tropical region.”

 

Let’s make the hypothesis that the picture had been taken exactly on the Tropic of Cancer. Let’s then imagine  that clouds where reaching the incredible height of 20000m that means 20kms…Can you compare 20kms with 3330kms? Of course you can’t.

 

So you have an evident proof that the picture above is fake. You could detect here a clear intention to infiltrate false evidences in the flat earth theory, to discredit it. So…pay attention.

Centrifugal Force

 

Due to the rotation of the Earth, a body on the equator should weigh less than on the Poles. This should be  a consequence of the centrifugal force acting on it. On the pole the centrifugal force is zero because the distance from the rotation axis is zero. Thus, on the Pole, a body should weigh more even because, as you have noticed above, the pole is 21kms closer than the equator to the center of the Earth.

Once I was reading a book reporting some basic proofs about flat Earth and saying that the difference in weight of a body  between the equator and the pole should be enormous.

In reality if you make the calculation and you take in account the centrifugal force and the difference of radius of the Earth from the equator to the pole you will see that the difference is about 6%.

Another step to a better understanding.

Bye.

3 comments

  1. You answered the “river running uphill” question yourself. The additional force is provided by the same centrifugal force you discussed at the end of your article.

Leave a Reply

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