It started with reification
It started with reification, a logical fallacy. It wasn’t through reason and evidence, just all the maps and books, with the constant presence of globes in school, on TV, everywhere except in the natural world and my experience.
You know, the Bible starts off with the assumed and presumed position that God exists. It doesn’t start with proofs and evidence. It just starts with God, the cause of everything. But, as the Bible progresses, the people it describes don’t simply sit on the presumption. Personal experience furnished the assumption, educates those characters to the point that it is not some theoretical assumption, but a real, lived-out fact. In Devarim (called “Deuteronomy”), God can tell the people of Israel repeatedly to look at what they’ve been through, to remember certain real experiences, to pass it down to the children to form a powerful tradition and heritage for a nation.
And for those of us who didn’t have that experience, we’re not left in the lurch. For me, I not only have their history as evidence, as well as their continued presence, but the Jewish commandments in the Torah gives a challenge, a law: “Know that this Creator is the God, the Deity, the Master.” As has been explained by others, that means to ponder on one’s life and experiences, investigate the world and nature, examine these things deeply to see whether God is truly that underlying fact. I can say for myself that I have thought about it and learned what I can, challenged myself and was challenged, and I know God to be that fact.
When it comes to the ball earth concept, that notion that the globes that decorate classrooms and science and geography books, that infest the media and movies even when not the subject of discussion, are representative of where I actually live, I understand that I only took that notion for granted. The teacher said it so it’s true. The book had a glorious picture of a globe earth amongst other globes, with lines to describe their path around a fireball, so it’s true. The books show the globe cut in half showing its yellow (meaning hot) centre, so it’s true.
So it started with a reification fallacy, treating an abstraction as if it were real, taking pictures and toys as if that’s truly my home.
I learnt on my travels about suspension of disbelief, that when it comes to movies that the mind will forget or set aside the fact that it is all a fiction in order to become invested in the plot of the movie. I also learned that people tend to believe what they see, that the mind and body cannot tell the difference between reality and illusion, and will at times react physically when watching pretense. It reminds me of young children who seem to accept whatever they see and what they are told. It’s like that part never leaves humans. That could lead to other subjects, but I’ll leave that there for now. But it’s not as though we’re simple tools to what we see and hear. It seems that people take certain things and hold it as a foundation or framework so that a person doesn’t end up believing 528 things in one day or month because everyone has different opinions. The question, though, is whether that foundation and framework gets tested, whether it is established on facts and solid reasoning.
So all my life, until recently, I had, for the majority of my life, been told one thing: the ground that you live on is actually part of a rotating sphere that goes around the sun. I didn’t really care about or know the details of this idea; I simply held it. There was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction within me to treat other ideas as things to ignore. I don’t remember ridiculing them, simply ignoring them.
Even when I started turning to geocentrism, where there is still a sphere earth but now the universe surrounded it, I still focused more on principles and evidences rather than the details of the idea.
But at the start of each journey into “insanity,” there was one question that pushed me into the unknown realms: why do I believe what I believe? When it was going from simply accepting the mainstream view of flying balls with the earth being one of them, I asked why I accepted the movement. I could not refer to what I had learned at school because, from what I could remember, the teachers never really focused on proving the concepts, only helping a student memorise them. So I had to search for the evidences that were previously used by the ancients to cause the belief to become so widespread. Let’s just say I was deeply disappointed with the quality of evidence. I wasn’t even focused on logical fallacies back then, but even then the evidence and reasoning were as flaky as hell. I sought to find out why Galileo was so persecuted, what evidences he presented. In the end, I found out that the story of Galileo was more legendary than historical, and that his evidences were crap in trying to disprove the centrality of the earth (sun causing earth tides, moons orbitting Jupiter, phases of Venus). But at least I did the footwork rather than simply believing.
But while I was reading De Labore Solis by Walter van der Kamp, he made an incredibly important point that stuck with me. I won’t quote what he said, only what I understood from it. It is easy for the mind to race into the world of imagination, as if being God standing in a place of perfect rest, to see what moves and what doesn’t. And that is what those books from school taught me to do, take flights of imagination in my mind to “see” things I couldn’t really see. I could watch the Milky Way galaxy from the outside, seeing its spirality, and see earth’s position in it. But that was in my mind. I can still see the “onion” picture of the globe earth with its molten core, the yellow stuff around it, the mantle and crust. But again, it’s in my mind. And that’s the power of the indoctrination, the way I was taught, the brainwashing. It’s really easy for me to retreat to this way of thinking, that because it is conceivable, it’s that bit more closer to truth. It’s like I’m turning to reification again.
But once I stop with the imagination and ground myself, starting from “first principles” and working from there using evidence and reasoning, then all of a sudden, the pretty pictures are gone. I don’t see this spinning, flying, sun system. I’m here, on earth, looking out of my eyes and beginning, once again, to use my senses and thinking.
Now, by “first principles,” I’m not using that in a technical sense. I’m using that in a personal way to describe where I actually start from, i.e., my own sensory experience. [I also learned that we don’t just have five senses, but that’s another story.] So I think about my day-to-day experience. Starting from there, I ask myself, if I feel any motions as described by the story of the universe as described by the knowledgeable believers in the theory, not just the normies who are just like I used to be, ignorant of the details. So yes, I need to know the details. What are the motions?
In their story, the surface of the earth spins at a tangential speed of 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. Where I live, that would be about 600 miles per hour. Let’s pretend that’s a constant speed. Except not exactly since it is said that this ball earth wobbles. Oh well. The earth is also said to be moving around the sun, about 67,000 miles per hour and not in a circle but in an ellipse, which means there is now acceleration in that alleged journey, faster closer to the sun and slower further away. That also means there’s acceleration as the ball earth is supposed to spin on its non-existent axis, faster in the night (orbit speed + spin speed) and slower in the day (orbit speed – spin speed). That’s not all. The sun system is supposed to be moving in the spiral arms of the galaxy at about 500,000 miles per hour. That’s not all. The galaxy itself is said to be moving at 522 kilometres per second. Hmmm … I don’t like that. The units changed. Let me change that to miles per hour. Step-by-step. So first I’ll change the km to miles. So that’s 324 miles per second. That would be 324 times 60 miles per minute, which is 19,440 miles per minute. Then it’s 19,440 times 60 miles per hour, which is 1,166,400 miles per hour.
So, back to my initial question: do I feel any of this incredible speed? Absolutely not! I experience no such movement. I imagine a picture of it happening, but not to scale. I know there are meant to be immense distances between the planets in this imagined supposition, but there is no physical connection between the bodies of the flying system. That … errr … that just seems even more fictional now. But it’s supposed to be “gravity,” right? I’ll get to that. But it doesn’t help.
My senses tell me that the earth doesn’t move in such motions. The sky and the bodies in it move, but I don’t. That’s where I start from.
There’s another factor to this. I personally sense no curve. I’ve got no inkling that I’m on a ball. In my limited travels, I’ve never experienced such a dip or curve, never seen it directly. I’ve only travelled over something that doesn’t seem to have the angles of a cube or any other 3D shape. I’ve only travelled over a relative plane, save for hills.
Another thing I’ve never experienced is higher air pressure staying stuck to the outside of a surface near an area of a lesser pressure and not expanding out to equalise. Nor have I experienced water sticking to the outside of a ball the way described by the ball earth idea.
When it comes to gravity, I have experiential issues with that. When I was at school, “Newtonian” gravity – it’s not really Newtonian since there is evidence that Newton didn’t want anything to do with such an idea – was defined as mass attracting mass, that objects of sufficient mass pull other things towards their centre. And I accepted this for a long time. That is, until I stopped and thought about it. What was mass? People would say it’s just how much stuff an object has, how many molecules that something has. But then others say it’s resistance to a change in motion (essentially inertia). But whatever it was, it wasn’t in my experience. I know weight, how heavy something is. But mass seemed different. Anyway, why would the amount of mass something has make it attractive? I thought fatter men and women, morbidly obese, weren’t that attractive at all … Oh wait! Wrong topic. LOL.
Anyway, there’s no reason why this mass thing would make things come together or become attractive like a magnet. There’s no point in invoking “spacetime” which is only a mathematical concept, not a physical thing. But not only that. I had never in my life experienced that at all, mass attracting mass or a real and physical substance oxymoronically called “spacetime” (what a stupid name!). So the question would then be, why would I apply attributes that I’ve never experienced to bodies I could never touch? The sun, moon and stars are all intangible for me. Why would I ever believe that a big rock can forever fall around a ball of burning hydrogen? How do I even know what the sun is? Why the hell would gas, hydrogen, be massive? Gases don’t clump together and burn eternally. In fact, pushing gases together makes them more energetic and push apart.
Again, this picture of the onion earth with its layers, what sense does that make when, as far as I know, no human has been more than 8 miles into the ground, much less the thousands they say the depth of the ball earth is?
So I’ll need something really convincing to show me that I’m on essentially a mindless spherical spaceship careening in various directions with all the properties they say the universe and earth has. The fact is that when I really think about it, the spinning ball-earth notion disagrees with all my experience.
So what evidence is given to prove that what I stand on is part of a spinning, orbitting, wobbling ball in a great and grand blackness, just one of many flying things?
Boats going over the horizon bottom first? All the heavenly bodies are spheres so the earth must be sphere? Eratosthenes and the wells or sticks? Eclipses? The Coriolis effect? Different constellations in different latitudes? Photos from space? Circumnavigation, going around the world? While I was making sure my little list contained all the normal basic proofs, I did a little search online. I’ll summarise them and see if they were or are good enough for me to leave experience aside and settle on the fact that I must be on a ball.
Boats going over the horizon bottom first. Ok. I’ve seen plenty of videos of something like this. So because some, not all, boats disappear from the bottom at certain distances, this is said to prove the ball earth. How? Because it is concluded that the boats are being blocked physically by earth curve, the boats going over the curve of the earth like going over a hill. Ok. The logical formulation of the argument is this:
- If the earth is a ball, the ships should disappear from the bottom up due to earth curve.
- Ships do disappear from the bottom up, so the earth is a ball.
I’ve already got a problem with this. I think it’s a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent.” The formulation of the fallacy is this:
- If p then q,
- q therefore p.
This is a failure in logic because there may be other reasons for q. For example, “if I’m outside when it’s raining, I get wet. I’m wet, therefore I was outside when it was raining.” One thing doesn’t necessarily follow the other. There may be other reasons for this phenomenon if it actually happens.
Also there is a begging the question fallacy in the first part: “if the earth is a ball, the ships will disappear bottom first as they sail away due to earth curve.” The conclusion of ball earth is found in the premise: “earth is a ball” and “due to earth curve.”
The first part of the argument is that ships disappear bottom up as they go away from a person. This isn’t necessarily true. Sometimes they do simply fade into the distance. So that would contradict that claim right there. If they are going over some hill-curve of the earth, then they are being physically and visibly blocked, always. There can’t be a “sometimes.”
The second part of the argument states that they disappear bottom-up because of earth curve. But people have carried out tests on surfaces known to be flat and gotten the same effect. In fact, others have tested this claim with non-moving objects but altered the humidity of the place and things disappeared bottom-up as well. So this highlights the “affirming the consequent” fallacy that takes place with the “ships over the horizon” claim.
Also what makes this idea nonsensical is that once a sea vessel is beyond the horizon, if it’s a physical curve and obstruction, then no amount of zooming in on the ship with optical devices would bring it back into view anymore than me using a zoom lens on a camera focused on the top of a brick wall to help me see a tennis ball on the other side of that wall. Yet, there are videos of people zooming in onto the horizon and bringing back ships into sight.
For evidence of all this, see the following links.
- 10 Challenges For Flat Earthers: COMPLETED (Part 5 – Boats “Over The Curve”?)
- Why Objects Disappear Bottom Up – Part 1 Angular Resolution – by mitchell fromAustralia
- Angular Resolution and the Disappearing Coin by mtn moto adv
- Why Objects Disappear Bottom Up – Part 2 CURVATURE DOESN’T EXIST by mitchell fromAustralia
- The Horizon Experiment – Macro & Micro – Testable, Observable, Repeatable – by Sky Free
- Micro Skyline Observations by Sky Free
So what’s a horizon? It’s where the sky appears to meet the earth. So it is only an apparent thing, not a real thing, because the sky doesn’t really meet the earth, only due to the way the human eye works. But the people using this as proof have turned what was only optical into something physical. It has now become the edge of a curve, a sphere with certain properties such as a radius and circumference. So some of those properties make certain arguments possible.
If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles, then the horizon, that limiting aspect of a curve, can be no more than, in miles, 1.2 * √(the height of the eyes of the observer in feet). I’ve tested this calculation with the curve calculators of globe believers that mention horizon limits. But why is this the case? Because the horizon is supposed to be like the top of a hill. Things may be able to obscure it and make top harder to see, but as far as I know, nothing can make you see what is behind the hill, because it’s a physical obstruction and limit.
If a camera is 1ft off the ground, the horizon should be 1.2 miles away. This picture shows the horizon to be more than 10 times this value. I have heard of so-called “atmospheric refraction” and that light can bend. But the notion of it causing a magnification of 10 times beggars belief. Also, even if someone said “refraction can account for it,” the problem is that the ball earth is yet to be proved. There’s little point in invoking refraction if you’ve yet to prove the ball.
There’s another video where a person is on a plane of a certain height taking pictures of islands hundreds of miles away. The distance to that horizon is way off as well, too far beyond the mathematics and geometry.
To summarise, this proof is first a logical fallacy (maybe two), it claims things that doesn’t always happen, says that the effect is only caused by earth curve when there are multiple other possibilities, like how eyes work and the nature of air and humidity, and leads to issues that contradict the ball idea. Tell me, who would provide a proof wrought with so many problems? If this is supposed to be a reason for me to forsake my senses and experience, then, for me, it fails terribly.
Wow, if I deal with each issue in so lengthy a fashion, then this is gonna be a long post. Hmph. Whatever.
So there’s the argument that all the bodies in the sky are spheres, so the earth too must be a sphere. Again, there’s a lot missing with this sort of reasoning. Why would I think the ground is like the sky? They don’t even look or act the same. So on what basis would I think that because some of what is above my head are spheres then what is below my feet is spherical?
Let me think how sturdy that logic is.
- Everyone else at my school is black, so I’m black.
- I’m surrounded by trees in a forest, so I’m a tree.
- All the balls on the pool/snooker table are spherical, so the snooker/pool table is spherical.
The reasoning is stupid, to be blunt.
Added to that, I personally don’t see spheres all over the sky. From where I am, I see points of light except for the sun and moon, and I’ve never seen another side to them. So maybe the logic should be that everything in the sky is a shining light, so earth is a shining light? Except the earth isn’t.
Oh, oh wait. I can see it coming: the pictures we get from space agencies shows all the heavenly bodies are spherical. I can’t verify those pictures at all. And I have no reason to trust the source. Think about it. I have no clue about what something is because it’s out of my reach and a stranger says, “hey, it is x and it does this and that.” Can I prove a damn thing he’s saying? Nope. But he’s part of a group that thinks the same thing. So? There are others that think differently. So? What’s worse is that this group is part of the government. Not really a stamp of truth at all, more like the total opposite of truth.
But let me take off my total-skeptic hat since there may be amateur pics of the intangible heavenly objects. So all I have is that the brightest of the starry objects are colourful circles. Nice. Again, what does that have to do with where I live? The rationale is just weak, that’s all. As if I’d deny my experience for something so flimsy.
Eratosthenes. Now people can’t seem to get this story straight. Was it sticks or wells? Either way, the story that’s told is … Damn, each time I hear it, it sounds less like history and more like a children’s story or a myth with fuzzy and odd details. Check out this video to see why I say this. I’ll say my problems after the story.
So this guy from the third century BCE finds out one of two things, if any. He lives in one city and finds that, at midday, there is a well that has no shadow since the sunlight goes straight in, but in another well, there’s a shadow. In other versions, it’s a stick or buildings in one city that has or have no shadow at midday whereas there is a shadow in another. He purportedly has a guy pace out the distance between the two cities and gets a distance of about 800 km. So a guy walks 800 kilometres to measure it? Really? And he didn’t use kilometres but something called a “stadia.” A problem here is that some places suggest or outright claim that we don’t know how long a stadia is (see the video I previously referred to). He uses the angle made by a shadow in the well or one made by sticks and some assumptions to calculate the circumference of the Earth. This is said to prove that the Earth is a ball.
Again, it’s a story full of holes. Look at this statement by Wikipedia.
The key words in this statement are “Eratosthenes’ method to calculate the Earth’s circumference has been lost; …” (found at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes). Ok, so this is wikipedia, not a great source. Is there a more reputable source? What about the Encylopedia Britannica?
Key phrases include: “The exact length of the units (stadia) he used is doubtful, and the accuracy of his results is therefore uncertain.” But of course the writer comforts the reader by assuring me that “it was certainly in the right range.” Colour me convinced … NOT!
Where is that tight, nice little story?
And what did Eratosthenes assume? Let me quote.
Eratosthenes makes five assumptions which he will use as hypotheses in his argument [11, p. 109 ].
1. That Alexandria and Syene lie on the same meridian.
2. That light rays from the Sun which strike the Earth are parallel.
3. That the distance between Alexandria and Syene is 5000 stades.
4. That the angle formed by the shadow and the staff in Alexandria at the summer solstice is equal to 1/50 th of a circle.
5. That the Earth is a sphere.Eratosthenes and the Mystery of the Stades – The Basic Problem, found at https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/eratosthenes-and-the-mystery-of-the-stades-the-basic-problem
I saw something scarily familiar in this quote as I wrote this post, so I kept looking and found a similar quote.
Eratosthenes made a few assumptions. One was that the earth was a sphere and the other was that the sun’s rays were parallel. Neither assumption is true, but both were close enough.Eratosthenes Measures the Earth, found at https://www.themathdoctors.org/eratosthenes-measures-the-earth/
Do I need a third witness? What about a third and a fourth from hostile witnesses? Wait, aren’t they all hostile witnesses?
It has been noted that Eratosthenes made two important assumptions:
1. That the Earth was a perfect sphere.Eratosthenes Measurement of the Radius and Circumference of the Earth, found at https://www.projectglobalawakening.com/eratosthenes-circumference-of-the-earth/
2. That Alexandria was 5000 stadia away from Syene/Aswan.
Eratosthenes made two assumptions here: that the earth is a globe and that the sun is distant enough that its rays are essentially parallel. Eratosthenes’ experiment alone does not prove that the earth is a globe because his assumptions must be true in order for his conclusions to be valid.How To Disprove The Flat Earth, found at https://takethisskepticalblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/how-to-disprove-the-flat-earth/
So the claim is that Eratosthenes proved that the earth was a ball; that was the conclusion. However, he also assumed that the earth was a ball. Even when things say “he assumed the two cities were in the same meridian,” the term “meridian” necessitates a ball. So he assumes a ball and looks at shadows on the ground and then proves a ball using maths. It appears we are back at two logical fallacies: affirming the consequent and begging the question. At best, all he did was have a game in his head: plug in assumptions, get some numbers and do maths. Do those maths have anything to do with actual reality? Not a clue. Maths isn’t reality, just a language.
Then I have more of his assumptions. He assumes that the sun is far enough away for the light to be parallel. Where’d that come from? So he didn’t know the distance to the sun and he assumed its light to be parallel. But even I’ve seen sunlight isn’t parallel. There’s plenty of pretty photographs with sunlight spreading out as if from a central source flowing outward. That’s not parallel. Some of the defenses that globe-believers give necessitates that light being able to bend and be distorted due to humidity and the medium of air, making claims of parallel light questionable. So this Eratosthenes “proof” necessitates that I assume what is not real. And this is meant to be convincing? This is part of the grounds upon which flat-earthers are ridiculed? In fact, it gets worse.
What makes this “proof” worse is that it doesn’t eliminate flat earth! It doesn’t disprove flat earth! Why? Because it’s just a mind game where you plug in assumptions and make the maths work. So all one needs to do is change one of the assumptions, that the sun is far away, and it still works. According to another hostile witness, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the observations would also work for a flat earth with a local/closer sun. In fact, there’s another video that shows that different characteristics of the atmosphere could still have a flat earth. So Eratosthenes isn’t even a disproof of the flat earth! How worthless is that?
So this Eratosthenes “proof” is based on a logical fallacy, has faulty assumptions, may not even prove the ball earth and doesn’t even disprove flat earth! Colour me convinced … NOT!
What’s next now? Eclipses? Yes, eclipses. In particular, lunar eclipses. Now here, I’m not going to say what the proof is. I’m just going to describe what is observed in a lunar eclipse.
A lunar eclipse is where the moon becomes darkened in a gradual way, starting from one side, the darkness slowly creeping to the other side, the leading edge of which darkness looks curved, until the moon is fully covered and turns red. The darkness then leaves in the other direction, as if the moon has just passed through something. That’s what is observed in a lunar eclipse.
For the globe believer, a lunar eclipse is proof of a globe earth. Now how the proof has been presented to me by some woman from NASA, Michelle something, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson is as follows. They will tell me that lunar eclipses are caused when the earth goes between the sun and the moon, and the darkness that obscures the moon is, in fact, the shape and effect of earth’s shadow. They continue that if the earth were flat, then the shadow would have different shapes. It is inferred that the only thing that can cause such a shadow, a curved shadow, is a sphere. That’s the proof.
Does anyone other than me see an obvious and serious flaw with this proof? No one? A raise of hands? Oh wait, I’m typing this while I’m talking to myself in my head, aren’t I? So this won’t work. Hmmm … OK, since I’m the only one in attendance in my own head, I may as well answer.
The reason why the lunar eclipse itself cannot be a globe earth proof is that the eclipse itself, the observation of it, isn’t actually the proof. This whole argument is the embodiment of the reification fallacy that I started this article with, combined with a begging the question fallacy. The actual proof is the story that is attached to the lunar eclipse. The story must first be accepted for the consequences to have any power. This is a reification fallacy because once the story is accepted, the imagination comes in; those wonderful pictures come in. In the mind’s eye, one is on the outside, in outer space, looking down on how the sun, moon and earth really move, seeing the earth go between the sun and moon, making the shadow. The concept is treated as if real. It’s circular logic because you must believe the story to be true to then have it as a proof. I need to already accept the earth as a ball in order to believe it is the cause of the darkening of the moon.
Now there is a certain problem that arises using lunar eclipse as proof. The selenelion, where the sun and moon are above the horizon when a lunar eclipse occurs. This doesn’t make much sense if earth is in between. And yes, I’ve seen the attempts of explanation, that refraction, light bending, means that the moon isn’t really where we see it it is and the sun isn’t really where it is. But that’s just an excuse to keep one’s belief in the belief system intact. Get such a person to prove where the sun and moon actually is! Demand they show you the camera from which the video was taken from above all celestial bodies involved with the actual positions of the sun and moon! For me, I soon realise that the person is using one belief (actual and apparent positions) to uphold another belief in the solar system model.
I also find this red shadow when the moon should at its darkest strange as well. One solid, non-transparent object is blocking light from the other, and the shadow goes red? Nah.
“But, writer, what then causes the lunar eclipse?” That’s not the purpose of this article. I’m not here to replace your stories. I’m just judging the ones provided. It’s a shame that, so far, they’re quite rubbish.
So in this “proof,” there are logical fallacies, reification and begging the question, and the fact that the proof is not the observation, only the fallacious story of what causes eclipses.
Coriolis effect is supposed to prove that the earth is moving, spinning. What is the coriolis effect?
The Coriolis effect (also known as the Coriolis force) refers to the apparent deflection of objects (such as airplanes, wind, missiles, and ocean currents) moving in a straight path relative to the Earth’s surface.
The Coriolis effect occurs when an object traveling in a straight path is viewed from a moving frame of reference. The moving frame of reference causes the object to appear as if it is traveling along a curved path.What Is the Coriolis Effect? found at https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-coriolis-effect-1435315
the deflection of a body in motion with respect to the earth as seen by an observer on the earth, attributed to a hypothetical force (Corio′lis force`) but actually caused by the earth’s rotation.https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Coriolis+effect
The effect of the Coriolis force is an apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves within a rotating coordinate system. The object does not actually deviate from its path, but it appears to do so because of the motion of the coordinate system.https://www.britannica.com/science/Coriolis-force
In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force that acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise (or counterclockwise) rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflection of an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
So Coriolis effect is talking about a fictitious force and an apparent (not real) motion. The way that is given in TV programmes is people on a roundabout, while a ball is being thrown between them, or a ball is thrown above them. To the people on the roundabout, the path of the ball will seem to deviate as if acted on by a force, but it is only their motion that is causing the apparent effect. Another example is a hovering thing, a drone, on a roundabout. As long as it is in contact with the base or floor of the roundabout, it will move with the roundabout, because it is connected to it. But should that hovering thing, that drone, lift off from the roundabout and hover above it, still in the air, to a person actually on the roundabout, it will seem as if the drone is moving in a certain direction. It is only an apparent affect, not real.
So this proof demands two “frames of reference:” one, where the object is rotating, and one that is not rotating.
One old piece of evidence for this Coriolis force/effect is the Foucault pendulum.
Imagine you are in a museum located at the north pole and that the museum has a Foucault Pendulum suspended from the ceiling at a point exactly over the pole. When you set the pendulum swinging it will continue to swing in the same direction unless it is pushed or pulled in some other direction. (This is due to a basic law of nature called Newton’s First Law.) The earth, on the other hand, will rotate once every 24 hours underneath the pendulum.Foucault Pendulum, https://www.si.edu/spotlight/foucault-pendulum
At either the Geographic North Pole or Geographic South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Foucault had an insight. A pendulum hanging on a wire and swinging directly north and south would appear to the observer to slowly move its plane of oscillation as the Earth turned underneath it.Jan. 7, 1851: Foucault Gets the Swing of Things, found at https://www.wired.com/2011/01/0107foucault-pendulum-experiment/
So the story goes that the earth spins beneath anything not connected to it. And this would make sense. Why? Because the gases in the air have no physical bonds to it. So the so-called “atmosphere” wouldn’t spin with the spinning earth, as if it were some solid gas body, which is illogical. (Even the term “atmosphere” is irrational, but that’s for another time.) So whatever is not connected to the earth should be affected by this Coriolis effect, since, just as with the pendulum, the earth should spin underneath and cause deflections. The earth spins underneath.
Now should I ignore the fact that this proof presupposes that which it is supposed to prove? That this is again a begging the question fallacy? Should I ignore the fact that the Foucault Pendulum argument can be structured as an affirming the consequent logical fallacy, if p then q, q therefore p, if the earth spins, then the pendulum would rotate, the pendulum rotates therefore the earth spins? Does the fact that I wrote down both questions show that I haven’t ignored either fact?
OK, let me move past that. Let me deal with the most obvious elephant in the room: in real life, where it matters, the coriolis effect doesn’t exist! Even with the proffered Foucault Pendulum, even with other claims like laser gyroscopes (not mechanical ones), this proof falls down very quickly. Why? Because it is built on the idea that the earth spins underneath objects. Just like the roundabouts spin underneath the thrown balls and underneath the drones, because there are two reference frames, the spinning one, and the non-spinning one above it, this is what causes the proof to fail.
If Coriolis effect really happened on a worldwide scale, if the world were a ball, then the flight-time of long-distance airplanes would necessarily be affected. In fact, trying to land planes would become all that more hazardous. The earth is said to spin about 1,000 mph at the equator from west to east, faster than any plane. As soon as the plane has been in the air for a short time, time enough for the “momentum” argument to be worthless, if it’s flying with the rotation of the earth, the earth should outrun it. Journeys in the other direction should be much shorter since the ground is racing underneath the flying machine. Anything staying in the air for enough time, like a helicopter or balloon, should make easy journeys to some places, just being able to hover while the ground moves underneath.
I mean, thinking about the pendulum in terms of relative motion, how is it known what actually moves? If the motion of the pendulum coincides with the movement of the stars, then motion is relative, then why is it automatically assumed that it is the earth that absolutely moves? If the pendulum moves – and there are some that say the pendulum trick doesn’t always work – then all that can be said is that it moves, the cause having not been established. To rely on an affirming the consequent fallacy to point solely to earth movement just shows the weakness of the argument. If the movement is fixed to the stars, can’t the stars be the cause? Just a question.
Now what excuses normally excuse the use of meaningful evidence of the coriolis effect? The unproven gravity, either faux-Newtonian or Einsteinian? The notion that gases actually do act like a solid and moves with the earth, which refutes coriolis since there is no longer two reference frames but only one? I can’t think of a decent excuse, as if it matters.
Since there is another bunch of logical fallacies and a lack of meaningful evidence (even some question as to whether the Foucault Pendulum actually works or proves what it’s meant to prove), this just seems like more crappy reasoning to forsake my senses. The numbers just don’t add up.
Colour me convinced? Hell no!
Anything else? A few more things.
Different constellations at different latitudes. This is somehow supposed to be a proof. The story goes that the stars in the southern latitudes are different to the stars in the northern latitude. So what? Well they say this can only happen on a ball. Why do they say that? Why can’t it happen on a flat earth? Is this that immature that eyes can see for infinite distances and therefore a person is supposed to see the same stars no matter the latitude? But that sort of thinking is stupid. Of course human eyes can’t see infinite distances, and that the way our eyes work, things get lower and closer to the horizon the further they get until they reach some vanishing point. So how the hell would the person deep in the south latitude see the stars in the north latitude??? This is supposed to be a proof for the ball or disproving a flat earth???
Maybe the issue is the claim that something else happens in the sky that should tell us about what’s beneath our feet. I’m totally nonplussed by this crap!
So photos from space and circumnavigation are left. Hands up who thinks these are the things that will blow my mind, that I’ve never seen these before or that these are conclusive proofs that disprove my experience, thereby calling me to reinterpret what I sense as phenomenologically and show without doubt that … oh, who am I fooling? Let me just cut to the chase.
As I said, nothing in my experience tells me that high air pressure can stay next to low air pressure having both systems coexists as such for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years without the air going in all directions. I have never seen or heard of gas maintaining its own shape, especially air. So the notion that air keeps its own shape around a ball (spinning or not) maintaining pressure whilst remaining next to an expanse of near vacuum without physical containmeot is utterly ludicrous. An “atmo-sphere?” An air bubble with no physical containment? Bullshit! That’s the best word for such an idea. I don’t have to bring up the fact that there are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. I could, but I ain’t gonna pretend that I’m more read than I am. “Micro-states” and probability? I’m sure there’s a technical rendering. But just to say in my own words, hot tends to go to cool, energetic to less energetic, organised/complexity to disorganised, pressure to equal pressure all around.
In light of all this, the vacuum of outer space must needs be unreal, not real, fake. I don’t think there could be another conclusion based on experience and what seems to be an unbeatable law of nature.
So if the vacuum of space is false, the activities said to be done in it, such a photos, journeys, walks, etc, must needs be fraudulent. It would be like telling me about what happened in Gotham City or Metropolis and expecting me to believe you.
I know plenty of videos that go into how NASA and world space organisations are lying and corrupt, simply entertainment and deluding arms of their various governments, how flights to the moon in the 60s and 70s were hoaxes. They are very convincing. But on this foundational fact, the fact that the vacuum of outer space cannot exist if we have air pressure here on earth and no physical containment, I can say photos from space are junk.
Yes, there are numerous videos and articles showing pictures claimed to be from space are admitted to be CGI, composites of data that some artist gets his hands on, where he tries to make it realistic and convincing for the audience, or that show that countries change size with the various claimed “photos,” or that the map of the countries of the world would not fit the globular pictures they create. There are so many holes in the government story … hell, why would I trust a government agency anyway?
So photos from space are out! I’d throw them on the trash tip. May God curse the immoral, lying and conniving governments, one and all! “Pray for their welfare,” my arse! Fiya pon Babylon!
So that leaves circumnavigation! This is worthless because it can be done on a flat earth, east to west, and I have no evidence of north to south circumnavigation. Circumnavigation would work just like the hands of a clock go around its “north,” namely, the pivot.
So, as I said, I have no sufficient reason to doubt my senses and that I live on a non-moving surface that’s relatively flat, with the objects in the sky moving.
I just want to say that although I did become a geocentrist because of the Bible, I did not become a flat-earther because of the Bible. I only went into this flat-earth stuff because I realised I had no good reason to accept the ball earth idea.
So, to end, this article is not called “Why you should accept flat earth.” I aim to change no one, only to relate where I am on the topic. I’m not debating, so I don’t need a rebuttal. I’ve not given myself a teacher, so I don’t request correction. If someone feels like a respectful conversation, I may have time for that. I could be wrong. But I’ve not met someone like that on the internet. Who has the time for a stranger to discuss this topic in a respectful manner?