Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast "hill"-of water!" The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such "science" as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.
59) Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”
If the earth is a sphere like we’ve been taught, with different layers of rock and a molten core, where did all the water of “the great deep” come from? The “great deep”, a giant reservoir of water going to great depths below the earth, does not fit into the globe earth model at all. It does, however, describe perfectly the Biblical Ancient Hebrew model of the flat earth.
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.

One of the most common objects reflected in this way is blue sky, which our brains interpret as light reflecting off a body of water. The reflected image appears below the object, which is why we call this an inferior mirage. The layer of warm air near the surface acts much like an ordinary mirror. As a mirror reverses direction left to right, an inferior mirage reverses direction from top to bottom (you see the same thing with a mirror if you tilt your head 90 degrees and look at reflections in the mirror.) The reversal happens because light from the top of a distant object will reflect closer to the observer than light from the bottom of the object. Therefore, inferior mirages usually appear inverted. Early in the morning or late in the afternoon, solar heating of the ground is not nearly as great, so inferior mirages are less likely to happen then. The same is true during autumn and winter when the sun is much lower in the sky.
Humanity has known Earth is round for a few millenia, and I’ve been meaning to show more methods that prove the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. (Most recently, rapper B.o.B. went on a Twitter rant on the topic.) Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the Flat Earth Society—and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.
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.
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.
What must be the angle of incidence for total internal reflection to occur? Let medium 1 be the medium with the higher index of refraction. As θ1 increases, θ2 also increases, albeit at a faster rate. When θ2 reaches 90 degrees, there is total internal reflection, and there is no transmission of light. The corresponding angle of incidence, θ1, is the critical angle where total internal reflection occurs. Let the critical angle be θc. Substituting into Snell’s law:

As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon–out of the reach or direction of both–and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a “shadow” of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? The difficulty has been met by assuming the influence of refraction, as in the following quotations:–
×