It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”
I am new to flat earth and see way more logical proof to this idea than the spinning globe. I have often wondered about what we are taught as it didn't make sense but we believe because that's what we been taught. One item I have not seen in my research and maybe you can address. If one were to stand precisely at the point where the imaginary axis is that the globe spins on, at the North Pole area, or even say 1/4 mile away,or ten feet away, what the person would see or experience I think would be bizarre....essentially rotating in a 1/4 mile or ten foot circle during the 24 hr day...more bizarre if they were on the exact axis point. This I think could be proven easily by going there, but it seems to not have been, which to me adds more proof to flat earth.I am sure if one were to go there, they would not see any following a circular pattern as the 24 hrs pass. They would be stationary!
Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
The way our vision works makes everything converge to a single vanishing point on the flat horizon, including airplanes and the sun. Artists understand this. Airplanes appear to drop below the horizon when in reality they are flying level to the flat earth and never dip their noses down to account for any supposed curve. It's the same with the sun. It is moving across the sky on a flat circular path but it appears to rise and fall due to perspective.

Another MAJOR problem with the Ball earth model is that the path of the total eclipse shadow that is coming on August 21 in North America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 73 miles across! How can a shadow be SMALLER than the object casting the shadow? This is physically impossible! We know from experience that shadows can be the same size or larger than the object casting the shadow, but it can never be smaller. We are told that the moon is 2,159 miles in diameter. So shouldn’t the moon’s shadow on earth be at LEAST 2,159 miles wide? But instead we are given the path of the next eclipse across the United States and it is only 73 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.
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.
By 1959, his attention had been captured by rock 'n' roll, and he joined a band called Vince and the Vigilantes.[6] In 1962, while studying in the art department at Swindon College, he formed his own band, called Rick's Blues, and was now playing a Hohner electric piano instead of drums. The band included Gilbert O'Sullivan on drums for a time; he later was the best man at Davies's wedding. In a March 1972 interview, O'Sullivan said "Rick had originally taught me how to play the drums and piano – in fact, he taught me everything about music."[6] When his father became ill, Davies disbanded Rick's Blues, left college, and took a job as a welder at Square D,[6] a firm making industrial control products and systems, which had a factory on the Cheney Manor Trading Estate in Swindon. Any hopes of an artistic career were temporarily put on ice.
While it's true that unipolar magnets can't exist, this isn't a problem for the Flat Earth. This is because ring magnets, which are shaped like (you guessed it!) a flat disk, are capable of having radial magnetization. In a radial magnet, one magnetic pole is at the center and other is at all points on the edge of the magnet. A magnet like this can be found in loudspeakers, and perfectly replicates what is found on the Earth.
That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
91.) "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his " Book of Nature," we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schroedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but " the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that THE EARTH is – and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature – unscientific -false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Both Davies and Hodgson talked of a reunion a couple of times, however, this would never come to pass. The first hint of a reunion came in 1993 when Davies and Hodgson reunited for an A & M dinner honoring Jerry Moss, co-founder of A & M Records. This dinner resulted in writing and demoing new songs, but it never went anywhere due to disagreements over management. Another hint of a reunion came in 2010 when Roger Hodgson approached Rick Davies about a fortieth anniversary of their very first album Supertramp (rogerhodgson.com). Rick Davies declined the invitation and any chance of Supertramp reuniting was squashed.
It was created to address the many misconceptions a Round Earther may have about the Flat Earth Theory, and to act as an easily-accessible entry point into the mainstream Flat Earth model. This page is designed to answer some of the questions that many Round Earthers raise when they first arrive. Please check this page before making your first threads in the forums, as it may contain the answers to the questions on your mind.

6.) If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" – to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye – that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.


138) 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 ships’ 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 could 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. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.
66) Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, sextants and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.
25.) The surveyor's plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles – from Valentia, Ireland, to St . John's, Newfoundland – the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface – not the astronomers' "level," either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

Another MAJOR problem with the Ball earth model is that the path of the total eclipse shadow that is coming on August 21 in North America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 73 miles across! How can a shadow be SMALLER than the object casting the shadow? This is physically impossible! We know from experience that shadows can be the same size or larger than the object casting the shadow, but it can never be smaller. We are told that the moon is 2,159 miles in diameter. So shouldn’t the moon’s shadow on earth be at LEAST 2,159 miles wide? But instead we are given the path of the next eclipse across the United States and it is only 73 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.


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.
×