Monday, February 1, 2016

Relativity Does Not Exist!





Around the turn of the 20th century, in order to save the dying heliocentric model from the conclusive experiments of Airy, Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor, Nordmeyer and others, Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity, a brilliant revision of heliocentricism which in one philosophical swoop banished the universal aether from scientific study replacing it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit.  If there is no absolute aetheric medium within which all things exist, then hypothetically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects, such as the Earth and Sun.  At the time, the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments had already long measured and proven the existence of the aether, but the church of heliocentricism was not to be deterred, Einstein never tried to refute the experiments scientifically, choosing instead to object philosophically with his notion of “absolute relativity,” claiming that all uniform motion is relative and there exists no absolute state of rest anywhere in the universe.  Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein’s theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” -Albert Einstein

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -George Ellis, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”

Einstein’s necessary modification to the heliocentric theory ultimately resulted in transforming it into the “acentric” theory of the universe, because the Sun was no longer the center of anything, and all motion was only relative.  Acentrists soon began postulating that not only is the Earth spinning 1,000 mph and revolving 67,000 mph around the Sun, but the  Earth, Sun and entire solar system as a whole are simultaneously rotating around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 mph!  Furthermore, the entire galaxy, with the Earth, Sun and entire solar system, are also simultaneously shooting 670,000,000 mph through the universe away from a Big Bang explosion at the beginning of time! 

The theory of the three [now four] motions of the Earth and subsequent ‘relativity,’ is the result of trying to cover up one lie by another. They say that as we whirl in London at the rate of nearly eleven miles a minute, we are shooting into space around the Sun at nearly twenty miles a second, and the Sun itself moves around a point in space, at the immense speed of 150,000,000 miles in a year, pulling our poor Earth with him at the added speed - the distance that separates us from the Sun - and in this maddening whirlwind of motions they try to apply Euclid’s spherical trigonometry to locate distances - which data was intended by Euclid to determine fixed points only - with the result that they have brought out wild calculations which have been fostered dogmatically on a gullible World, but are about as infallible as the utterances of Borgia.”  -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)

Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.” -Allen Daves

When Einstein first introduced his theory of relativity to the world, he often used the analogy of a wagon rolling along the street as an illustration.  “What we mean by relative motion,” he stated in a Princeton University lecture, “in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone.  If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest.  That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.”  

That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still - and to believe it - when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am  no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity … Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.  When he suggested that the street might be moving while the wagon with its wheels revolving was standing still, he was asking us to imagine that in a similar manner the earth we stand upon might be moving while the stars that pass in the night stand still. It is a Case of Appeal, where Einstein appeals in the name of a convicted Copernican Astronomy against the judgment of Michelson - Morley, Nordmeyer, physics, fact, experience, observation and reason.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65-66)

On the surface relativity may seem plausible enough, especially when presented by a charismatic character of Einstein’s caliber, but is it really so simple and straight-forward?  In fact Einstein’s theory of relativity is so complicated and convoluted that when it first came to the public’s attention, it was said that there were probably less than a dozen people on Earth capable of understanding it!  After Einstein presented his theory to the Royal Astronomical Society, philanthropist Eugene Higgins offered a prize of $5,000 for the best explanation of relativity, in essay form, describing it so the general public could understand what it was all about.  Prize winner Mr. L. Bolton himself admitted that “even when stated in its simplest form, it remains a tough proposition.”

Along with Einstein’s denial of the aether and anything absolute (except the absoluteness of relativity), he had to create a litany of new terms and ideas, each depending upon another and contributing to support the whole.  For example, Einstein claimed there was no aether, that time is a fourth spacial dimension, that “infinity” and “eternity” do not exist, and that light is a material thing.  This meant that time must be added to the three dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness, that “space” be renamed a “continuum,” and “points” in the “space-time continuum” be renamed to “events.”

What we have always known as a ‘point’ in the terms of Euclid, Einstein calls an ‘event!’ but if words have any meaning a point and an event are two totally different things; for a point is a mark, a spot or place, and is only concerned in the consideration of material things; while an event is an occurrence, it is something that happens.  There is as much difference between them as there is between the sentence ‘This is a barrel of apples,’ and ‘These apples came from New Zealand.’  While claiming ‘time’ as a fourth dimension, Einstein explains that ‘by dimension we must understand merely one of four independent quantities which locate an event in space.’  This is to imply that the other three dimensions which are in common use are independent quantities, which is not the case; for length, breadth and thickness are essentially found in combination; they co-exist in each and every physical thing, so that they are related - hence they are not independent quantities.  On the contrary, time IS an independent quantity.  It is independent of any one, or all, the three proportions of material things, it is not in any way related; and therefore cannot be used as a fourth dimension.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (69-70)

Einstein’s theory of relativity claims that light is a material thing which therefore has weight and is subject to gravity.  This idea meant starlight could now bend under its own weight and curve its path based on the distance and mass of objects along its trajectory, which allowed heliocentrists like Einstein to claim stars are in reality not where they appear to be, and that with this new geometry the stars must be moved to much farther away than previously assumed.

Consequently the heavenly bodies may be much further away than they have hitherto been supposed to be, and every method which is based upon the geometry of Euclid and the triangulation of Hipparchus will fail to discover the distance to a star; because its real position is no longer known.  Wherefore Einstein has invented a new kind of geometry, in order to calculate the positions of the stars by what is nothing more or less than metaphysics.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (66-67)

Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” states that light always travels at the same speed, 186,414 miles per second (671,090,400 miles per hour), but Einstein also claims that gravity causes light to bend towards massive objects along its trajectory.   If a ray of light can be said to bend, curve, or deviate from its course due to the gravitational pull of masses in its path, it must by necessity accelerate when approaching and decelerate when receding from these things.  However, if light can bend under its own weight, or under the law of gravitation, as Einstein claims it does, than it is not and cannot be absolute.

Strangely enough, while Einstein claims that everything is in motion and nothing is stable, he allows one thing, and one thing only, to remain outside the realm of relativity, independent of everything else; He claims that the velocity of light is constant under all circumstances, and therefore is absolute.  This is a blunder of the first magnitude, but I do not imagine that he fell into it through any oversight; for it is quite evident that he was driven into this false position.  He was compelled to say that the velocity of light is constant, because, if he did not his new geometry would be useless … We are told that light is a material thing, and that a beam of light is deflected from a straight line by the gravitation of any and every thing that lies near its course as it passes within their sphere of influence; and we are further assured that light always maintains a uniform speed of 186,414 miles a second.  We have, however, to remind Professor Einstein that this was determined as the result of experiments by the physicists - Fizeau, Foucalt, Cornu, Michelson, and Newcomb, all of which experiments were conducted within the earth’s atmosphere, on terra-firma.  In all these experiments a ray of light was reflected between two mirrors several miles apart, so that it had to pass to and fro always through the atmosphere, and it is not to be supposed that light, or anything else, can travel at the same speed through the air as it would through the vacuum Einstein supposes space to be.  Let us reverse this in order to realize it better.  It is not to be supposed that any material thing travels at no greater speed through a vacuum than it does through air, which has a certain amount of density or opacity.  If anything does not distinguish the difference between air and a vacuum, then it is not a material thing; it cannot be matter.  On the other hand, anything that is matter must of necessity make such a distinction, and in that case its velocity cannot be constant.  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (70)

Conventional wisdom before Einstein’s theory was that light was not a material thing, that it discharged in a straight line in every direction from the source, that it could not be influenced by gravity, could not bend, curve, or be deflected from its course by anything; As Lord Kelvin said, “Light diverges from a luminous center outwards in all directions.”  Its velocity may be affected according to the density of the medium through which it passes, but this fact simply proves Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” is incorrect.

The length of the course used by Newcomb in the final determination of the Velocity of Light was 7.44242 kilometers.  If the ray of light had deviated by a hair’s-breadth from an absolutely straight line, it never could have passed through the interstices between the very fine teeth of his revolving wheel, or return precisely to the appointed spot on his sending and receiving mirrors, which were 3.72121 kilometers apart.  The fact that the ray of light did pass from mirror to mirror, and through the wheel, proves that it maintained a straight line; hence it is certain that it was not deflected from its course by the gravitation of the earth between the two mirrors; wherefore it is obvious that it was not affected by gravitation.  So we find that the very experiments by which the accepted 186,414 miles per second as the Velocity of Light was measured - experiments which were carried out with the utmost painstaking and minute attention to detail - prove that a ray of light is not influenced by the gravitation of the earth in the slightest degree.  Therefore, if those experiments were good enough to warrant all the world in accepting the ‘Velocity of Light’ they may be equally well adduced as proof that a ray of light does not bend by its own weight; and that light is not affected by gravitation.  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (71)

"As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so." -Robert Sungenis

Relativity is clever; but it belongs to the same category as Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the Kant-Herschell-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, in as far as it is a superfine effort of the imagination seeking to maintain an impossible theory of the universe in defiance of every fact against it.  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65)



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

Monday, January 25, 2016

Gravity Does Not Exist!





If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards.  If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster.  If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground.  And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground.  Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.”  The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight.  That is very different from “gravity.”  Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden.  Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.”  -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy.  He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: “How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick?  I throw up this book.  Why doesn’t it go on up?  That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason.  I cut the string of a toy balloon.  It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle.  I take this brick and a feather.  I blow the feather.  Yonder it goes.  Finally, it begins to settle and comes down.  This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air.  That is all.”

Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy.  If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

Einstein’s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.”  Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it.  They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off. 

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth?  Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun!  What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun?  The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon.  By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth.  Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth?  The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent.  Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun?  What is the cause of this permanence?”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?”  -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world.  There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it!  There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it!  Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it.  To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’  What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’”  -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?  How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?  How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction?  Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours - at the equinoxes and solstices - completely disproves the ‘might have been’ of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation … If the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ‘in a right line forever,’ as astronomers say.  On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe!  As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ‘discovery’ of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (44-45)

We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising an hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess?  Common-sense must reject this interpretation.  Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the result experienced.  If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of  the spinning ball without falling or flying off.  Take a ride on the “Gravitron” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it.  Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would also exist and have to be overcome, yet neither of these opposing forces have ever been shown to have any existence outside the imaginations of heliocentric “scientists.”

Gravitation is the term now used to ‘explain’ what common-sense people look upon as inexplicable.  Globularists say that all orbs in space are globes gravitating towards each other in proportion to their magnitude and power of attraction - there being a ‘centripetal’ force (tending towards the center) and a ‘centrifugal’ force (tending from the center); but how inert matter can set up any automatic force, and cause one body to gravitate towards another body, has never yet been made palpable to the senses.  It belongs to the regions of Metaphysics (‘existing only in thought’).”  -Lady Blunt, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40-41)

We are not like flies which, by the peculiar conformation of their feet, can crawl on a ball, but we are human being, who require a plane surface on which to walk; and how could we be fastened to the Earth whirling, according to your theory, around the Sun, at the rate of eighteen miles per second?  The famed law of Gravitation will not avail, though we are told that we have fifteen pounds of atmosphere pressing on every square inch of our bodies, but this does not appear to be particularly logical, for there are many athletes who can leap nearly their own height, and run a mile race in less than five minutes, which they could not possibly do were they thus handicapped.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (3)

The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it.  Is it so?  If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcome the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction.  If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around.  If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s.  Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly.  Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused.  Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence.  But the tides are not uniform.  At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet.  This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep.  In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides.  But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?  If the moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater … How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the earth's centre; is it possible then for the moon, having once overcome the power of the earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? … The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the ‘theory of gravitation.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)

Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ and it will be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise and fall in the water.  As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced.  This is the general cause of tides.  Whatever peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes … That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors.  If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble.  However carefully the ‘level’ may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the ‘bubble’ will not maintain its position many seconds together.  A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (108-110)

In the past several decades, NASA has shown video of astronauts, supposedly in low-Earth orbit, experiencing complete weightlessness, or “zero gravity,” how is this weightless effect achieved if gravity doesn’t exist?  As it turns out, for the past several decades, NASA together with Boeing have been perfecting so-called “Zero G planes” and “Zero G maneuvers,” which are able to produce weightlessness at any altitude.  Aboard modified Boeing 727’s specially trained pilots perform aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas.  Planes climb with a pitch angle of 45 degrees using engine thrust and elevator controls, then when maximum height is reached the craft is pointed downward at high speed.  The period of weightlessness begins while ascending and lasts all the way up and over the parabola until reaching a downward pitch angle of 30 degrees, at which point the maneuver is repeated.  Therefore all NASA’s footage of astronauts aboard “space shuttles,” or “the International Space Station” can be easily hoaxed and simulated in Earth-atmosphere aboard a Zero G plane.  In fact, watching footage of Zero G plane flights alongside footage of NASA astronauts supposedly floating around their “space shuttles” and “space stations,” no observable difference can be seen between the two.

Astronomers claim to have measured all the planets distances, shapes, orbits, weights, relative positions, and times of revolution all based on the “law of gravitation” and without gravity, their entire cosmology folds under its own weight.  Without gravity, people cannot stand upside-down on a ball-Earth! Without gravity, the Earth and planets cannot be revolving around the Sun!  Without Newtonian gravitation, Einsteinian relativity, Copernican heliocentricity, and the entire Big Bang ball-Earth mythos cannot exist and falls to pieces.  Gravity, both metaphorically and quite literally, just does not hold any water; not as a sound theory of cosmology, and not as a law supposedly responsible for holding in the world’s oceans!

Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live and move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to the earth by a force which fastens them to it ‘like needles round a spherical loadstone,’ a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense and ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe … If we could - after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth - conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power - no matter by what name it be called - that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (21-88)

Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation. The name is derived from the Latin word ‘gravis,’ which means ‘heavy,’ ‘ having weight,’ while the Law of Gravitation is defined as ‘That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.’  Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be ‘That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.’ That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing . . . The definition implies that it is a force; but it does not say so, for that phrase ‘mutual action ‘ is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (14-15)

The system of gravitation which makes the sun the moving centre of the Universe, the awkward principles of which are anything but certain since they apply to invisible circumstances so that they cannot be checked, is here replaced by the old geocentric system, universally accepted until the 17th century in view, of course, of its undisputable obviousness, and in which the earth, in a state of immobility and surrounded by the planets visibly moving round it including the sun, is at the centre of our Universe. These two facts which explain almost everything are firstly, the positive existence above the earth of a solid dome constituting the sky; and secondly, the non-material nature of the planets and constellations, which are not physical masses, but merely luminous manifestations without substance. These are the two circumstances which lead today to the fundamental transformation of astronomy.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (vi)

The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd.  Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is passive by nature, is a supreme illusion.  It is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man’s mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment.”  -Professor Bernstein, “Letters to the British Association”



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Debunking the Spinning Ball Earth





One of heliocentrist’s favorite “proofs” of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or fly at right angles to the North Pole and eventually return to their original location.  Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere.  Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth.  The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions.  Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag! 

Circular sailing no more proves the world to be a globe than an equilateral triangle. The sailing round the world would, of course, take very much longer, but, in principle, it is exactly the same as that of the yachtsman circumnavigating the Isle of Wight. Let me give a simple illustration. A boy wants to sail his iron toy boat by a magnet, so he gets a basin, in the middle of which he places a soap-dish, or anything else which he may think suitable to represent the Earth, and then fills the basin with water to display the sea. He puts in his boat and draws it by the magnet round his little world. But the boat never passes over the rim to sail under the basin, as if that were globular, instead of being simply circular. So is it in this world of ours; from the extreme South we can sail from East to West or from West to East around it, but we cannot sail from North to South or from South to North, for we cannot break through intervening lands, nor pass the impenetrable ramparts of ice and rocks which enclose the great Southern Circumference.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (68)

A very good illustration of the circum-navigation of a plane will be seen by taking a round table, and fixing a pin in the centre to represent the magnetic pole. To this central pin attach a string drawn out to any distance towards the edge of the table. This string may represent the meridian of Greenwich, extending due north and south. If now a pencil or other object is placed across, or at right angles to the string, at any distance between the centre and the circumference of the table, it will represent a vessel standing due east and west. Now move the pencil and the string together in either direction, and it will be seen that by keeping the vessel (or pencil), square to the string it must of necessity describe a circle round the magnetic centre and return to the starting point in the opposite direction to that in which it first sailed.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (226)

The ball-Earther’s logical argument is that only a globe can be circumnavigated, the Earth has been circumnavigated, and therefore the Earth is a globe.  This is indeed a logical modus ponens statement, but the conclusion is rendered invalid because the first premise - that only a globe can be circumnavigated - is categorically false.  Another similarly logical but unsound argument ball-Earther’s make is that only on a globe would one gain or lose time when sailing/flying East or West, time is gained or lost when sailing/flying East or West, and therefore the Earth is a globe.  Again, the logical conclusion is rendered invalid and the argument unsound because the first premise is incorrect.  The same effect would be experienced on a stationary flat-Earth as it would on a spinning ball-Earth.

The gaining and losing of time on sailing ‘round the world’ east and west, is generally referred to as another proof of the earth's rotundity. But it is equally as fallacious as the argument drawn from circumnavigation, and from the same cause, namely, the assumption that on a globe only will such a result occur. It will be seen by reference to the following diagram, that such an effect must arise equally upon a plane as upon a globe.  Let V, represent a vessel on the meridian of Greenwich V, N; and ready to start on a voyage eastward; and S, represent the sun moving in an opposite direction, or westward. It is evident that the vessel and the sun being on the same meridian on a given day, if the ship should be stationary the sun would go round in the direction of the arrows, and would meet it again in 24 hours. But if, during the next 24 hours, the ship has sailed to the position X, say 45 degrees of longitude eastward, the sun in its course would meet it three hours earlier than before, or in 21 hours--because 15 degrees of longitude correspond to one hour of time. Hence three hours would be gained. The next day, while the sun is going its round the vessel will have arrived at Y, meeting it 6 hours sooner than it would have done had it remained at V, and, in the same way, continuing its course eastward, the vessel would at length meet the sun at Z, twelve hours earlier than if it had remained at V; and thus passing successively over the arcs 1, 2, and 3, to V, or the starting point, 24 hours, or one day will have been gained. But the contrary follows if the ship sails in the opposite direction. The sun having to come round to the meridian of Greenwich V, S, N, in 24 hours, and the ship having in that time moved on to the position fig. 3, will have to overtake the ship at that position, and thus be three hours longer in reaching it. In this way the sun is more and more behind the meridian time of the ship as it proceeds day after day upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circum-navigation the ship's time is one day later than the solar time, reckoning to and from the meridian of Greenwich.  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (229-230)

The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings ‘noon’ to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where ‘time’ is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be ‘put on’ or we may be said to ‘gain time.’ If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still ‘morning,’ the watch has to be ‘put back,’ and it may be said that we ‘lose time.’ But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's ‘rotundity,’ as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (100)

Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon.  Their claim is that ship’s hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth.  Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur.  The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence.  For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks.  Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs.  The same happens with cars speeding away, the axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car is gliding along its body.  Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea.”  - David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (75)

Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope.  If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, and not by a wall of curved water!

On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the ‘Bedford Canal,’ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just ‘hull down,’ a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (216)

Ball-Earthers will often quip that “if the Earth were flat, then we could see all over it!” but this is of course ignorant and inaccurate.  If you stand on the beach, a plain or prairie, you will find the horizon extends about three to six miles around you depending on the weather and your eyesight.  The range of the human eye, our field of vision is from 110 to 1 degree, and the smallest angle under which an object can still be seen is 1/60 of 1 degree, so that when an object is 3000 times its own diameter away from an observer, it will cease to be visible.  So for example, the farthest distance at which one can see a 1 inch diameter penny, is 3000 inches, or 250 feet.  Therefore, if a ship’s hull is 10 feet above the water, it will disappear from the unaided eye at 3000 times 10 feet, or 6 miles.  This has nothing to do with the supposed “convexity” or “curvature” of the Earth and everything to do with the common Law of Perspective.

The horizon of an observer is distant or near according to the greatness or otherwise of his elevation above the surface of the supposed globe.  If he stands 24 feet above sea level, he is said to be in the center of a circle which bounds his vision, the radius of which in any direction, on a clear day, is six miles.  A local gentleman tells me that he has watched a boat-race in New Zealand, seeing the boats all the way out and home, the distance being 9 miles from where he was standing on the beach.  I have seen the hull of a steamer with the naked eye at an elevation of not more than 24 feet, at a distance of 12 miles, and in taking observations along the South African coast, have sometimes had an horizon of at least 20 miles at an elevation of 20 feet only.  The distance of the horizon, or vanishing point, where the sky appears to touch the earth and sea, is determined, largely by the weather, and when that is clear, by the power of our vision.  This is proved by the fact that the telescope will increase the distance of the horizon very greatly, and bring objects into view which are entirely beyond the range of vision of the unaided eye.  But, as no telescope can pierce a segment of water, the legitimate conclusion we are forced to arrive at, is that the surface of water is level, and that, therefore, the shape of the world cannot be globular, and on such a flat or level surface, the greater the elevation of the observer, the longer will his range of vision be, and thus the farther he can see.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (56)

On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (46)

In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation.  Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory.  The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses. 

This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a ‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute.  Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!  -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (7)

Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (73)

To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction.  Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much.  Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.”  The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other.  The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.  If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion!  If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable - not always.  The variation when it does occur, is not uniform - is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction.  It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition.  It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing!  Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth?  What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth?  What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?  Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation?  Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (153)

We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions.  A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction.  Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time?  We should like to know.  Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point … If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions.  But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it.  And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension.  They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach.  -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (8-10)

Also in the mid-19th century, another Frenchman named Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis performed several experiments showing the effect of kinetic energy on rotating systems, which have ever since become mythologized as proof of the heliocentric theory.  The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth.  Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction!  Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth. 

While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day.  When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo.  The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.”  -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?”  Science.HowStuffWorks.com

The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere.  Again, however, the same problems remain.  Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind?  What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?  Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all?  If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force?  And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently?  Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub