200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

I don’t even think the author of those 200 proofs believes the s~~~ he’s shoveling.

Batman, you’re quote is full of nonsense. It’s almost as if the author is trying to confuse the reader to the point where they just accept his conclusions without fully understanding because it’s too much effort to try and comprehend.

I only read the first few of the ‘proofs’, but they were all garbage. They only make sense if you ignore everything you’ve ever known regarding physics, forgot what you learned, or never learned it to begin with. #4 is my favorite so far.

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

This is moronic. I can only assume the author is taking an odd perspective view of the elevation of the river and then concluding that gravity must work within that same perspective. He’s saying that the gulf of mexico is the ‘top’ and therefore the Mississippi’s start is below that point. Gravity doesn’t share his perspective. Gravity pulls objects towards the center of the sphere. Mississippi begins at a farther distance from the center of the sphere then the gulf of mexico, thus water flows towards the gulf…to state it basically.

The flat earth theory wouldn’t be too much different, accept that instead of having the center of gravity being at the center of the sphere, it would have to be a consistent downward force along the entire flat surface of the earth. Exactly how would that force be generated? Assuming you could explain that, why don’t we see imperfections in that force? Like how a mattress is made of many springs, the springs are not 100% identical, thus you see measurable differences in ‘springingness’ depending on where you test.

As far as the earth being stationary, that isn’t completely inaccurate since movement is really relative. The problem is that the math of explaining movement of objects in are extremely difficult when you consider earth to be the center reference point. If you take the sun to be the center (and heaviest object) then the math is a lot simpler. Moons would be an exception as there movements are easier to understand when you take the nearby planet as the reference point.

Not sure why I’m bothering to go into this.

The Batman 2020 wrote:

You want to kick out a critical thinker with the tuna button go ahead.

I’m quite happy for you to be here and advance your ideas and will defend you’re presence, Batman – you’re claims about the King of Sweden had me laughing out loud – but please don’t ever mistake, “believing every conspiracy theory that comes along” with critical thinking. They’re polar opposites.

To try to add to what Narwhal said, if we’re on a ball, then from any given point to the centre is basically the same distance as from any other given point to the centre – that’s one of the properties of a sphere.

Hence, all railway tracks are ‘flat’ because any given point is at the same ‘height’ from the centre of the earth as any other given point. I probably didn’t phrase that well, but by all means think about it til it makes sense, then accept or reject it. But don’t say (or post) silly things like, “arbitrary point A looks ‘uphill’ from arbitrary point B due to curvature!” I’ve never studied physics and even I can see that is silly.

Also, all the over-the-horizon physics, from aiming battleship guns to bouncing radio waves, all works. Surely that says something.

It’s fun thinking differently to the sheeple, but that is never a test of the veracity of a statement.