The last science museum I was in was Houston Texas. The motion of the rotating earth would in no way create a motion of an independently moving earth under the fixed pendulum's point! The motion (or effect of rotation) would be perpendicular. or better said, the earth's rotation would be pushing the pendulum left to right, as the last time I checked, Houston is on the SIDE of the earth. The proper movement of the pendulum? Maybe a longer push when the swinging movement aligned with the motion of the earth. But in no possible way could the pendulum do what it is doing, and NOT be at the North pole. Do you get me? am I wrong? -md
43.) The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely to fall from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth, since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will participate in that motion; but, if an object be thrown, upwards from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion, the circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall behind the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it will fall by the gun. If the Earth traveled eleven hundred miles a minute, the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since, then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth's fancied motion is negatived and we have a proof that the Earth is not a, globe.
9) If “gravity” is really a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction. If “gravity” is strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.
Rowbotham was a victim of a superior mirage. When flat-earthers hear this, they normally respond by dismissing this as impossible, because mirages supposedly are inverted images, but Rowbotham saw the boat right side up the entire time. However, this confuses superior and inferior mirages. What is the difference? First we must discuss the physics of light a bit.
Well I dont rule out a creator because so many things were by design. Look at how some animals protect themselves. Take a skunk, that is ingenious, but doubt it was through evolution. Look at a raccoon, cool looking mast dont you think, that's what Hollywood says as well. Look a all males, their penis retracts when not in use, hmm somebody was thinking. No, not evolution but careful breeding by some one. Probably many Somebodies came here and created their own species, that's why we look a little different from continent to continent. who knows how far back it goes, maybe all mammals were created by somebody. But then whales might be smarter than us.
If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be - twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the earth's curve." Now since if this were the case - that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" - the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth is not a globe.
Astronomers tell us. that the Moon, goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every. day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of reasoning to show that we have found a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.

Mr. Proctor says.- "The Sun is so far off that even moving from one side of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen in a different direction - at least the difference is too small to be measured." Now, since we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same distance south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north, our very shadows on the round cry aloud against the delusion of the day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
30.) If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles – varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
20. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him - that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - yes, and to inspiration - and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe
×