140) Foucault’s Pendulums are often quoted as proof of a rotating Earth but upon closer investigation prove the opposite. 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. 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!
115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.
“hundred miles below the sun and moon, [then it] cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called “Earth light,” will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times “like the glowing heat of firer tinged with deep red.” “Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red–red hot.” “The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire.” “It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes.” “Its tint was that of red-hot copper.” The sun light is of an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to known optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.
A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (our sun would have to behave quite differently to accommodate the flat-earth theory) and what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets' orbits and the effects of gravity). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.

With increasing distance from the object, the earth’s curvature causes the surface of the water to fall away from the beam of light. Over one mile, the amount of drop is eight inches, but the drop increases quadratically with distance. Consequently, after three miles the drop is six feet, and after six miles the drop is 24 feet. This is the point of the Bedford level experiment—the curvature of the earth ought to intervene to prevent the mast of the boat being visible from much more than three miles, let alone six miles. However, for the light from the distant object not to be visible, it would have to travel in a straight line. But with a temperature inversion, straight-line motion would carry the light from a cooler layer of air into a warmer layer of air at nearly a grazing angle. The light cannot do this, so it continually is internally reflected, causing the light to bend around the edge of the earth. Therefore, with a temperature inversion, one can see objects that lie well beyond the edge of the earth’s curvature when viewing close to the surface of water.
The problem with the Globe Earth model is that it is completely the opposite of what the Bible says. In the Globe model, there is no separation of waters from the waters below. In fact, there are no waters above. Neither is there a barrier separating earths air from the vacuum of “space”. We are told that “gravity”, an invisible force even “scientists” do not understand, is what holds the air and the water onto the earth. But never has anyone ever been able to produce a real vacuum without a barrier around it to keep the air separated from the vacuumed space. There must be a solid barrier or it does not work. In this way, the globe makes no sense.
In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there - of a truth - is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts - and it is outrageously false in several - it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.
It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
How is it possible to see day and night at the same time on a globe? Wouldn't the curve prevent you from seeing the moon since it would be in the other side of the globe? And how can you see the moon over the FLAT ocean while also seeing the sunrise? In the following video you will see day and night clearly divided on a flat plane! You will see an airplane flying level on a flat earth with day and night divided. Watch as it becomes night and the day again as the airplane catches up with the sun. The airplane however never dips is nose down to compensate for the curve. The sun is also shown to be illuminating locally and the light follows is as it moves away on the flat earth, creating day and night.
With increasing distance from the object, the earth’s curvature causes the surface of the water to fall away from the beam of light. Over one mile, the amount of drop is eight inches, but the drop increases quadratically with distance. Consequently, after three miles the drop is six feet, and after six miles the drop is 24 feet. This is the point of the Bedford level experiment—the curvature of the earth ought to intervene to prevent the mast of the boat being visible from much more than three miles, let alone six miles. However, for the light from the distant object not to be visible, it would have to travel in a straight line. But with a temperature inversion, straight-line motion would carry the light from a cooler layer of air into a warmer layer of air at nearly a grazing angle. The light cannot do this, so it continually is internally reflected, causing the light to bend around the edge of the earth. Therefore, with a temperature inversion, one can see objects that lie well beyond the edge of the earth’s curvature when viewing close to the surface of water.
People have believed that the Earth is flat since the beginning of humanity, but the modern Flat Earth hypothesis stemmed from an experiment called the Bedford Level Experiment, conducted in the mid-1800s by a man named Samuel Rowbotham.[1] Rowbowtham, who wrote a book named Earth Not a Globe, started the modern movement by debating scientists publicly and accumulating followers. In the experiment, Rowbowtham attempted to measure the curvature of the earth by observing the curvatures at a local river. He took his results as disproving the theory of a round earth, but future scientists have said that the results he obtained could be accounted for by the parallax effect.[2]
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.
×