Life would not exist on this planet if it was flat. However, if Flat Earthism is incorrect, there must be verifiable and sensible evidence which can be presented (in lieu of ad hominems).
Professor Wizard explaining the fungibility of maths and the druidic ability to support and produce all possible phenomena. A wizard can abuse maths to ‘prove’ the world is flat.
"That the earth is a sphere is shown by the fact that as one goes south the stars of the northern constellations appear to sink down, and those of the south to rise higher; and also by the fact that the shadow of the earth, as cast on the moon in eclipses, is circular." (Aristotle, On the Heavens)
Aristotle’s observations are correct and confirmed. He offers 3 good reasons why this planet is a spheroid, and these are discussed below.
The ‘Enlightenment’ based its animus against the ‘Schoolmen’ on the idea that the medieval era ‘slavishly followed’ Aristotle. Unlike the Muslims and Arabs, the European medieval scholars did not. Beginning in the 12th century, Christians translated, analysed, experimented with, and eventually overturned, Aristotlelian physics.
However, some astronomical observations made by Aristotle, or the ‘teacher’, some 2500 years ago, are entirely valid and these informed medieval and early modern astronomy. There is nothing ‘dark’ about that. Use what works. Reject what does not. Given the vast quantity of Aristotle’s work, this analysis does take time.
Felix Baumgarten not even in ‘space’ with the curve in the background. Link
The Flat Earth question is related to Relativity and some of the topics we have analysed in over 100 posts on the Einstein-fraud. Essentially, much of ‘science’ is about philosophy and the filtering, interpreting and modelling of phenomena through world-views and agendas. The same applies to how Flat Earthers ingest and transform experiential data and observations.
The Question
In a recent debate on physics and cosmology, I was asked about a Flat Earth. I don’t assume that those who believe in the concept are crazy or unintelligent. In fact many arguments the flat Earthers bring up are based on science, some keen observations and are far from stupid.
The statement posing as a question, was (to paraphrase it loosely): ‘If you are saying Relativity is wrong, then do you believe in a Flat Earth?’ This is the usual assertion. If you dissent against the narrative and one of its saints, you are hanging off the edge of the Flat Earth by your left hand, goggle-eyed and laughing.
Not believing in fake flying bat viruses, or a merger of time and space, does not mean that you alight on the position that Magellan sailed over a flat edge into oblivion. Conflate, calumniate, and the valid argument dissipate, but never prove or illuminate. The usual narrative response.
Though hostile, I thought the question a good one, given that ‘science’ is situated in physical experiments, not theory or arcane, ridiculous maths. I answered it using information from the points below. The simplest one line reply is:
If the Earth was flat there would be no life on this planet, given that we inhabit an electro-magnetic ‘dynamo’, where electricity, energy and magnetism can only be produced from a spherical orb.
A flat plane would not sustain life. There is no known scientific mechanism for a flat object to generate electrical and magnetic energy.
There are some arguments against the Earth’s rotation (earthquakes for eg, which will be discussed in another post) and many good ones against its purported cosmological sprint around the Sun. But leave these to the side. The crux of the argument against a Flat Earth is that life would not exist on a flat plane. Let us deal with the main Flat Earth positions, and then we can offer scientific rebuttals.
Flat Earth Arguments
There are websites and wiki’s dedicated to supporting the Flat Earth concept1 (eg Eric Dubay). Some of their main claims are below.
A-When we stand on a flat plain which stretches over the horizon, the Earth does not show a curvature.
Answer A.1: There is nothing silly in this observation. The Earth is always depicted as ‘small’. It isn’t. Try walking around the globe. A sphere is a circular shape and the larger the circle, the smaller the curvature and eventually the more like a straight line it becomes. Given the planet’s size, you will not notice the subtle change in the horizon. This is admittedly, not a very satisfying answer.
Answer A.2: Premised on the above, and given the very large real size of this planet, all ‘flatness’ is ‘local’. If you view a Continent, say the immenseness of North America, the flatness disappears. If you went to a plains area in Kansas, a very flat part of the Continent, and spun yourself around in a circle, the horizon will appear to be totally flat. This is because you only see a very small fraction of the Continent.
This would be akin to a small insect standing on the shell of a football and viewing only the ‘flat’ part of the surface he occupies, without seeing the rest of the ball and its curvature. The surface of the Earth is a dimensional manifold (the Earth's surface is a 2-dimensional manifold, as it locally resembles a flat plane, though it is curved). Within a 2-dimensional manifold, the higher you go up, the more of the curve you will see.
B-Water over long distances appears to be flat.
The 19th century English doctor who called himself ‘Parallax’ (Samuel Rowbotham) used this argument, especially in connection with canals in England, to argue the Flat Earth position. He did this to amuse himself, his audience, and make some extra money. I don’t think he believed in anything he was saying, but he was good entertainment.
Answer B.1: This is indeed an oft cited proof for flat Earthers. But it mixes up a few concepts. First, as mentioned above, there is the large scale and subtle curvature of this planet over short distances. Canals, lakes and other purported proofs for flat Earthers are simply too small and close in distance to be relevant for their claims.
Answer B.2: Second, there is a difference between ‘flat’ and ‘levelling’. Water will find its own level due to gravity. Water will conform to the sphere and it may appear flat locally, but the mass is being pulled towards the centre. It is not ‘flat’ but at a level (meaning it is perpendicular to the force of gravity at all points, see fluid dynamics and geodesy).
C-The Moon face does not change.
Answer C.1: In fact the Moon itself disproves the flat Earth theory. The phases of the Moon are evidence of our planet’s sphericity. Everyone on Earth sees the same phase at any given time during the lunar cycle, and the moon is always the same size. This makes sense if it orbits the globe at a distance much greater than the diameter of the Earth.
Answer C.2: Moon shadows. Supporting the answer above is the physical fact that with normal telescopes we can see a creeping shadow across the surface of the Moon in a given location, say from where you live. Someone on the other side of Earth could then continue to observe the creeping shadow as the Moon disappears below your own horizon. This phenomenon is not possible on a flat Earth.
If the Moon and Sun always orbited above a flat Earth their sizes would change and people in different regions of the Earth would see different phases of the moon.
D-Parallax: If the Earth were spherical (and moving), we should observe a much greater parallax shift in the stars than we actually do.
Flat Earthers argue that the lack of a large, easily observable parallax effect proves that the Earth is stationary and therefore flat.
Answer D.1:The Tychonic theory of geo-helio-centricity assumes that the Earth is a sphere. It does not propose that it is flat. The conflation with immobility and ‘flatness’ is wrong and without evidence. For some reason Flat Earthers have taken over the Tychonic system of geo-helio-centricity. There is nothing ‘Tychonic’ in the Flat Earth proposition.
Tycho Brahe proposed a mixed helio-geo-centric system which Kepler’s maths, Einstein’s Relativity and modern scientific principles, can all be used to support (as many posts on this substack describe). In the Tychonic system, the lack of a real parallax (it is so small as to be meaningless) was an original claim against Copernicanism.
In reality the parallax is so small it is either non-existent, or barely relevant. The aether, gravity and other forces (eg radiation, Coriolis) would account for the parallax. Flat Earthers are correct that the parallax is small, but this is certainly not a ‘proof’ of flatness.
E-Flights in the Southern Hemisphere
Flat Earthers believe that southern hemispheric airline routes prove that the globe is flat. For example, flights from Australia to Asia or Africa transit hubs in Singapore, Dubai, or Delhi. Routes from Chile to Asia or Australia pass through Hawaii, Mexico City, or Los Angeles. In their view this indicates proof of flatness.
Answer E1: There are direct flights in the southern hemisphere. An example is the Qantas QF27 flight from Sydney to Santiago de Chile using a Boeing 787 or another very-long-range aircraft. It is a direct point to point route. You can plot its path on Flightradar24 or FlightAware, which will show you how the flights are mapped to the curvature of the Earth. This flight contradicts the hub and spoke network which is the usually pattern followed for transportation.
Answer E2: Most transport networks are hub and spoke systems, not point to point. Why? They are built to satisfy key principles including: network flow control, safety, observability, fuel and passenger efficiency, and economics (return on investment, passenger ticket costs).
In England, I cannot take a direct train from Exeter in the south-west, to my home in Sussex in the south-east, even though the locations are populated and along the same latitude. Instead I must transfer through the London hub lying to the north and which is off the direct route. This does not mean that Sussex lies on a flat Earth.
Common arguments against a Flat Earth
The following are some common assertions against those proposing a Flat Earth which can be kept in memory and used when needs arise: F-THANGS
1-Ferdinand Magellan: One of the great men of history. During 1519-1522, out of a crew comprising over 270 men in 5 ships, only 18 men returned to Sevilla Spain on one ship, which had circumnavigated the Earth. Magellan, the embodiment of a pious, dynamic leader, was killed in battle in the Philippines. You can’t sail a ship around a flat Earth. It is really as simple as that. Flat Earthers would have to deny that ship circumnavigation of the globe is possible or it is faked. This is not a winning position.
2-’Towers at a distance’ rebuttal: As a spheroid the Earth will ‘curve’ about 8 inches per mile squared. Atmospheric light refraction and the bending of light by the atmosphere (aether and gravity), can sometimes distort the perception of the horizon, making it harder to discern the curvature.
This is true when people standing in New York State on the American side of Lake Ontario, can sometimes see the CN Tower in Toronto, some 40 miles away. You would not see this if the distance was lengthened to say 120 miles. The absolute distance is important. In general around 60-100 miles is when the curvature of this planet can be very faintly noticed (based on Pythagorean maths).2 But even at 40 or so miles you can see that the Earth is curved.
An often cited proof is the view of the CN Tower from across Lake Ontario, some 39 miles away. As you can see this is false. The entire length of the Tower and the surrounding buildings reveal that there is indeed a curvature.
3-High altitude flights:Concorde flights, flying at 60.000 feet, found a visible and demonstrable curvature of the Earth (alse see Baumgarten’s photo above).
4-Airplanes: If the Earth was flat, we would not be able to fly around the world in an aerial imitation of Magellan. You can indeed circumnavigate the globe in a plane. If the Earth was flat, at some point you would hit ‘the edge’ and fly off into space. Flat Earthers will propose a ‘teleporting’ back from East to West, or West to East. There is no science to support teleporting.
5-Navigation: Our current navigation systems, including GPS and inertial navigation, rely on the Earth's spherical shape. These systems would be useless on a flat Earth. Compass directions would also behave very differently on a flat Earth (geodynamic and magnetic field effects would not exist in a flat plane!).
6-GPS: Our GPS satellites appear to be stationary in the sky but are in fact orbiting the Earth at a speed of around 3 km per second to keep pace with its rotation. GPS satellites only work because the Earth is sphere. If the Earth were flat, the 'stationary' satellites would simply crash into the Earth (if they really weren't moving), or they would drift into space.
7-Ships and horizons:Ships will disappear over the horizon, ‘hull-first’. This has been known since the first ships were built and sailed. The ship does not just ‘get smaller’. If the Earth was flat, the ship would simply become very small then disappear. This was known to the ancients and explained by John Sacroboso (c. 1195 – c. 1256) in his Tractatus de Sphaera (Treatise on the Sphere, i.e. the Earth).
The curvature of the planet is very subtle. It depends on your altitude and the absolute distance being investigated.
Phenomena
There are many other arguments which prove that we live on a sphere. The solsticewhere the Sun’s path is the furthest from the equator at 2 different times in the year (summer and winter solstices), is one. This indicates an ecliptic tilt and orbit, which can only occur with a spheroid. It also impacts weather, climate and seasons of course. This would not be true if the Earth was flat.
Consider ‘time zones’. If the Earth was flat the Sun would light up the entire flat surface at the same time. This is not what we observe. We see the Sun at different times of the day depending on our location. There is never a ‘single’ Sun ‘time’. We know that different longitudes correspond to different time zones and this is only feasible if the Earth was round.
The aforementioned Catholic scientist John Sacroboso pointed out the following back in the 13th century:
“That the Earth is round can be demonstrated as follows: The signs in the sky and the stars do not rise and set the same for all people but rise and set earlier for those in the East than for those in the West; there is no other explanation for this than the curvature of the Earth. Moreover, the phenomena in the sky show us that they rise earlier for Orientals than for Westerners.
For the same lunar eclipse occurs among us in the first hour of the night, while among Orientals it occurs approximately three-quarters of the first hour. This proves that among them, sunset and night began before us, for which the curvature of the Earth is responsible. (Tractatus 1:9)”
Of course that was a ‘Dark Age’ but John, back in the 1200s, was spot on. It was common knowledge during the medieval period that the Earth was spherical. This was confirmed using basic astronomy.
The arguments against Columbus had nothing to do with flatness, but with money, return and reality. Columbus shortened the real distance to ‘India’ by 2/3. Most were sceptical of his claims of how easy it might be and were aware of the high risks involved and the loss of capital and life. Columbus had studied extant texts which outlined sphericity and global distances which informed his plans. He was well aware that we live on a globe. To obtain capital he had to shorten the distance and guarantee a return on investment.
The Ecliptic
The Earth possesses an ecliptic which is the plane of Earth's alignment with the Sun. The ecliptic is realised from the Sun's yearly path across the sky as observed from Earth. This phenomenon is of a consistent and predictable nature, and helps explains our seasons, why Polaris appears the same over the north pole, eclipses, and allows the measurement of celestial planets and objects. This would not be possible on a flat Earth. An ecliptic would not exist.
Orion
In the Southern Hemisphere, the constellation Orion appears to be standing on his head, so that his ‘shoulder’ (Betelgeuse) is down. At the same time, the star Rigel, located at the bottom of his mantle, is ‘up’. Orion also looks like he is digging when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere.
There are many other proofs (for example a pendulum swinging at different rates at the poles versus the equator), the visible sphericity and rotation of planets (this is only inferential and not physical proof), and other observations but the point is made.
Bottom Line
There is very little real evidence that the Earth could be flat and possess life. A sphere whether moving or immobile, is necessary for life to exist, as is gravity, electromagnetism, and the vitality of the spherical Sun and Moon and their relationship with this planet.
The Earth’s curvature is subtle and ‘falls’ over a long distance. You cannot use a locality to prove that a ‘level’ is ‘flat’. Parallax and other observations do not support a flat plane.
Today, anyone who offers logic or proof that contradicts a mainstream-narrative is called a ‘Flat Earther’ and by extension a ‘Conspiracy theorist’. This is unhelpful and immature indicating a rather low level of discourse in a world dominated by Scientism. Labelling someone a ‘Flat Earther’ is part of the ad-hominem, censorship-complex.
The simplest questions to ask a Flat Earther could include; ‘explain Magellan and the circumnavigation of the globe 500 years ago, or demonstrate electro-magnetic dynamism within a flat plane’.
All hail.
next post: the fraud of ‘dark energy’
==
1Eric Dubay, who is not a practitioner of physical experiments, but seems to be a videographer living in Thailand and who makes misleading videos, seems prominent within the Flat Earth community.
2 The Pythagorean equation to support viewing objects at a distance from a certain height is calculated based on the Earth's radius (r) which is much larger than typical observer heights (h), the h² term is often negligible (eg a ship mast looking over the horizon, or me in the Portland Bill Lighthouse in Dorset looking out to sea).
The common approximation is: d ≈ √(2rh).
d = distance to the horizon; r = radius of the Earth (approximately 6,371 kilometers or 3,959 miles); h = observer's height, very useful to identify when the curvature will appear
I worked on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean with no land in sight to help pay for my college.
When you stand on the oil rigs platform and look out on a clear day it is obvious that the earth is round !!!
Thank you for the article, very interesting.