#31 Is the Earth a Sphere?; Why Doesn’t the Horizon Ever Bend?

From sea level we look out from the shore to the ocean and see a flat horizon.

Rising up in a hot air balloon we see the horizon still rising with us, especially at the corners of our field of vision. There is no curving away at the edges which should be happening if the Earth was a globe

If we were on a ball-Earth no matter how big, even if it were a million miles in circumference, the horizon of any ball Earth by necessity must remain exactly where it is! A horizon which rises to the eye of the observer can only be an extended flat plane.

If it were a ball, no matter how big, you would have to look DOWN more and more the higher you ascended. Think about it, no matter how big the ball is, if you rose off it in a hot-air balloon and stared straight ahead the whole time, you should be staring off into the “outer-space” beyond the curvature! In reality however, you will be staring directly at the horizon the entire way up without ever tilting your head downwards a single degree.  ~ Eric Dubay

It’s Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Tagged: , ,

32 thoughts on “#31 Is the Earth a Sphere?; Why Doesn’t the Horizon Ever Bend?

  1. Julien April 20, 2015 at 10:31 am Reply

    It’s interesting to note that on the black & white drawing, the balloon C is located at an altitude of about 700 miles (you can determine that by extrapolating the size of the Earth on the drawing). That’s almost 3 times the altitude of the International Space Station (250 mi). That’s also 30 times the record established by Felix Baumgartner in 2012 (24 mi). Finally, that’s about 2800 times the maximum altitude of a classic air balloon carrying people (0.25 mi). So, does this drawing give you a correct impression of what people should see in an air balloon? No, it doesn’t.

    With a curvature of 8 inches to the mile, at an altitude of 0.25 mi, the horizon is 0.64° below you. At an altitude of 5.5 mi (Mt Everest), it is 3° below you. Do you honestly want to try measuring that with your naked eyes? You would have to go a lot higher than that to notice the difference. For example, to notice a difference of 10° you would have to reach an altitude of about 60 miles. At 24 miles, Felix Baumgartner was seing a difference of 6.3°. As the lowest angle of human vision is typically about 65°, that’s far from being enough from requiring him to tilt his head.

    “If we were on a ball-Earth no matter how big, even if it were a million miles in circumference, the horizon of any ball Earth by necessity must remain exactly where it is!” -> I honestly don’t know what Eric Dubay means by that.

    “if you rose off it in a hot-air balloon and stared straight ahead the whole time, you should be staring off into the “outer-space” beyond the curvature!” -> Yep, we call that the sky. But no, you would not notice that the horizon is slightly lower – if you do, you’re in big trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jwlpeace April 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm Reply

      Hi Julien,
      Most of your comments regurgitate the Big Bang,Heliocentric, Earth Ball theory that has never been proven. None of your comments proof your efforts to educate and sway. Look out your door,look up. What do you see? A Sun moving East to West,likewise a Moon. Do you feel the 1,000 mph earth spin, the 1000 mp/second Earth moving around the Sun?

      Do you see gravity? Drop a feather, a book and a brick. Why don’t they all fall at the same speed due to gravity? Oh yea, it’s the cocoon atmosphere that keeps us all locked in for thousands of feet above us, yet clouds can go in any direction, same with birds, and when i want I can jump in the air against the velcro of gravity.

      Look at the stars rotating above you. How do telescopes work if we are rotating at 1,000 mph? would they not have to be adjusted constantly, especially when looking at the moon?

      and the moon, wtf is that? how can astronots stand on a moon that ‘reflects’ the Sun so greatly that we can see easily at night some 238,000 miles away on Earth, yet the moon is a non reflective gray we are told.

      And there is the obviously fake pictures of NAZA, founded by NAZi’s in 1958 along with our government.

      Doesn’t any of this register with you that it is all one great lie?

      “It’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they’ve been fooled.” -Mark Twain


      • Bryan August 13, 2016 at 6:47 am

        The irony of that mark twain quote is so harsh lol


    • Elizabeth McGreevy January 4, 2017 at 8:47 pm Reply

      Julien, it’s all a matter of perspective, right? I think humans tend to forget how tiny they are. lol


  2. Rahdnee April 20, 2015 at 12:19 pm Reply

    Julien, what secret society do you belong to??


  3. rahdnee April 20, 2015 at 1:44 pm Reply

    Julien, why are you making all this up with the numbers??


  4. Julien April 20, 2015 at 6:35 pm Reply

    Whoa :O

    Let me first say that I’m not exactly trying to prove anything. Rather, I’m trying to explain the heliocentric theory to you, because I think that clearly there are parts of it that you did not grasp and this causes confusion – that’s why most of your questions end with a big “WTF?”. Most of this confusion comes from the fact that you are trying to oppose some ideas that the heliocentric theory never defended in the first place. You are asking great questions so I believe you are a smart guy, there are just flaws in your reasoning that lead you to wrong conclusions. I’m just pointing them out. There is nothing wrong in debating over the validity of a theory. But for that, you need to fully understand the theory in the first place.

    As an example, you can’t just take a drawing of a balloon at an arbitrary high altitude and say “look, this is what the heliocentric theory states that you should see when you are in a balloon. Lol that makes no sense, obviously the horizon is fixed”. Actually the heliocentric theory states that you would never be able to reach this altitude with a balloon, let alone survive to see what happens there. The theory states that you can’t go high enough with a balloon to notice a change in the angle of the horizon and that’s why the horizon seems fixed.

    Another example is the idea that in order to prevent people from “falling from the underside of the Earth” gravity would have to somehow compensate the force pulling everything “down”. Actually the heliocentric theory states that there is no force that would make people “fall down” from the Earth, so there is no “underside of the Earth”. Thus according to this theory, gravity remains unchanged in all directions. It does not have to “compensate” for anything. Gravity is not something magical that explains everything: it’s much simpler than that, really.

    See? Most of your arguments attack statements which the heliocentric theory never defended. I’m just pointing that out, in the hope that once this is clarified everything will start to make more sense to you. Maybe I’m not good enough at explaining; I’ll be happy to clarify things whenever needed. But for that I need you to give me a chance, and seriously ask yourself if what I say makes some sense or not.

    You don’t have to shotgun me with a bunch of questions about every single controversial topic. You had the good idea of organizing the different topics in separate articles, and that’s great! Let’s look at each of them one at a time.

    Rahdnee: I’m not making anything up. I just took my calculator and did some basic math, following the theory. Perhaps another drawing justifying the value of these numbers would help?
    My point here was to show that the heliocentric theory can explain why you don’t see a noticeable change in the level of the horizon when you are in an air balloon. As such, the argument that “the level of the horizon does not change, thus the Earth is flat” is incorrect. Even if the Earth was not flat, it wouldn’t change either – or at least, not enough to notice it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jeremy Quinn January 28, 2017 at 7:21 am Reply

      Why did you yourself say heliocentric theory.. If we have proven that we rotate around the sun why is it still theory? If we know earth is round why is that only proven by saying we know other planets are round.. Wouldn’t we ha e definitive proof at this point? It’s still a theory because in over 200 years NO ONE has provided clear scientific evidence. That should tell you everything in that statement. No, we live in a geocentric world. The star patterns and all earthly experiments have come back with that result. Think about a planetarium.. They lay you down flat on your back and have you look up stationary and move the stars above you and tell you this is exactly what we view from earth. They don’t have the stars stationary and move you. Hmm? Also, I’m 30 and believed sphere earth my whole life up until I started looking into Tesla, Admiral Richard Byrd and all of the Apollo missions. I wanted to know why this lie was so important. And what I finally decided after days of research is I was going to find out who stood to gain the most and who stood to lose the most. It was surprisingly simple because the same man was the answer to both questions. John Rockefeller. The man who owned 90% of the US oil. It’s really easy to put together the pattern of deceit when you set up a timeline. Admiral Byrd was the first man to travel to both poles. He went to many Antarctic operations and during an interview he talked about a land across the south pole that is as big as USA, it’s now named Rockefeller Islands. He funded the government trips. All of this is public knowledge and on youtube… It’s funny what happens when you grow up and have the choice to search for the answers of the information you weren’t offered in school.


      • jwlpeace January 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm

        welcome to our new awakening, now we must educate the rest,
        i suggest you keep researching who “they” are and get into the Jesuits. i’ve got many links in the header link under “Rulers of Evil”, a whole ‘nother rabbit hole indeed!


  5. Julien April 20, 2015 at 8:59 pm Reply

    Let me rephrase that, just in case:

    Does the heliocentric theory tell you that the level of the horizon becomes lower when you raise in altitude? Yes, but you will only notice it if you go really, really high. When you remain at “low” altitudes (say, 0.25 mi for a balloon or 7 mi for an airplane) the horizon basically looks at the same level than on the ground.

    Does that make sense?


    • David February 9, 2017 at 4:59 am Reply

      No it does not make sense. If the curvature of the earth is 8″ per mile squared, as you rise in altitude the horizon should fall, even if you just rise a few hundred feet. Because as you rise your vision in distance increases and while it increase the curvature is occurring similtaniously with your altitude. So, if you had a geodetic instrument set absolutely level as you increase in altitude the horizon should not be visible through the instrument. Due to the fact that this does not happen and the horizon in fact rises as you gain altitude the globe model must create and explanation, and that is the earth is SOOOOOO big….or the lowering of the horizon is SOOOOO small. What they should do is produce an exact calculation based on 8″ per mile squared to indicate exactly how much the horizon would lower very ever foot of elevation. If this is not possible then the ball reality is not possible. On a ball the horizon must lower as you rise.


  6. izzy April 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm Reply

    “How do telescopes work if we are rotating at 1,000 mph? would they not have to be adjusted constantly, especially when looking at the moon?”

    I have a telescope, I frequently look at the moon. The scope needs to be adjusted constantly due to drift. In addition, the YouTube video of Felix Baumgartner’s recent balloon ascent very clearly shows the curvature of the earth. It is also visible in photos from the top of Mt.Everest, even at that relatively low altitude. Many round-the-world flights have been made, clearly demonstrating a spherical planet. This has been common knowledge since the days of Ferdinand Magellan.

    Jamie, what has happened to you? This argument is absurd.


    • jwlpeace April 24, 2015 at 7:03 pm Reply

      Hey Izzy,
      Q: How are minds like parachutes? A: they work best when fully opened

      “How do telescopes work if we are rotating at 1,000 mph? would they not have to be adjusted constantly, especially when looking at the moon?”

      I have a telescope, I frequently look at the moon. The scope needs to be adjusted constantly due to drift.

      A: So, you see the moon move across the sky with your firmly placed telescope and adjust as it drifts…yet why do you not adjust for the spinning of the Earth at 1,000 mph, or 19 mile/second movement (24,000 miles around the Ecuador in 24 hrs).

      And why are you not having to adjust to the Earth trucking around the Sun at some 533 million miles between birthdays or at 68,000 mph or over 1,000 miles per SECOND (533,000,000/365/24/60/60)?

      And why do you not have to adjust your telescope as our solar system, we are told by astronomers, that we are moving at over 500,000 mph around Milky Way?

      When you look up you and see the stars they are moving and a timelapse picture of the stars shows them rotating around a fixed North Star each night, right?


      Q: In addition, the YouTube video of Felix Baumgartner’s recent balloon ascent very clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

      A: Sorry, no it doesn’t. It shows a NASA partnered with Google IMAGE. Look again at these shots (sorry don’t know how to attach pics here) and see that some show it curved, some shots of Felix show curves…(about half way down)

      Also the math on curvature is simply miles X miles X 8 inches inversely proportional. Why do we never see the curves of Earth

      how can Great rivers be flat for thousands of miles when on an arc they should rise and fall hundreds of feet?


      Q: It is also visible in photos from the top of Mt.Everest, even at that relatively low altitude. Many round-the-world flights have been made, clearly demonstrating a spherical planet.

      A: Show me a single flight that has circumnavigated both poles. All flights have been W/E never N/S, why?

      “Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere.

      Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag! ”

      more information: http://ifers.boards.net/board/8/arctic-antarctic-ice-wall

      Why is their a no fly zone over the Antarctic and why do not planes fly direct routes over the Antarctic?


      Q: This has been common knowledge since the days of Ferdinand Magellan.

      A: All lies my friend, all of it! Courtesy of the Vatican, Freemasons and NASA.

      Jamie, what has happened to you? This argument is absurd.

      A :i’ve got several books for you if you want to borrow them. nearly all ancients and the bible taught a flat plane earth until the Vatican and their Jesuit ‘scholars” came out with their books and Royal Society of London scientists with the earth as a globe b.s.

      it’s over. it’a all over for those with minds that are open, eyes to see and ears to hear the FLAT OUT TRUTH!

      be happy to chat over a beer sometime and discuss further.
      also check out . 2999.


    • Alan Higgins June 30, 2016 at 1:01 am Reply

      izzy, watch felix Baums video again. You will notice the curve you are seeing is a distortion from the lens which makes everything curved and distorted. When it shows you the view from inside the capsule (albeit very briefly, pause the video and look at it from Felix’s point of view, not only do we see the horizon at eye level, but it is also totally flat, bright, clear horizon with a NON-GoPro lens and no distortion like the outside capsule view. Thats the reality! In fact if you consider his height in relation to the curve we are seeing, then you will realise, with that much curve, you would not be seeing so many details on the surface as can be clearly seen in the go pro views looking down; with that much curve you should be seeing a good portion of the continent.If you believe that footage is showing actual(vs distorted) curve, our “globe” is a much smaller place than you think. Freeze this video at :46 seconds and you will see for yourself. There are no distorted curves in this view. Now freeze the video at :50 seconds and look at distortion in the capsule, it looks curved and distorted, like the earth below. DO NOT DENY THIS!!!! Or read and believe the bible if your a christian. God Bless.


    • IP January 4, 2017 at 7:05 pm Reply

      Dear Illuminati Puppets.

      I appreciate some of the information passed through this media. I appreciate being challenged, and I always like to keep an open mind.

      However – Big Fail arguments are –

      Not feeling the Earth move 16 miles per second?

      The lack of sensation in ‘Constant Velocity’ vs ‘Acceleration / G Force’
      Take an elevator in the Empire State Building from G to 100 and by the time you have reached top speed and constant velocity, you will cease to feel the movement until the brakes are applied. Same for any other form of transport that is able to keep a smooth constant velocity.

      Telescope adjustments???

      ANYBODY claiming the ridicule of needing to adjust your telescope to compensate for the 16 miles per second earth rotational speed has clearly never used a telescope. Both manual and automated scopes will need continual adjustment to observe planets and moons clearly or for longer periods.

      The Invisible Curve of the Horizon?

      I find it very difficult to comprehend the altitudes required to observe this, or even if it is possible. NASA have confirmed they Photoshop everything, use fisheye lenses frequently, do not posses the means currently to land on any moon or planet, and needed Stanley Kubrick to inspire the correct filming techniques to make a reasonably dodgy hoax of the Moon landing. The Van Allen Radiation belts also impede any manned craft’s exit to the atmosphere of this planet, as does scuba gear.

      X———————— —————————-Y

      If X and Y are lower than A, then it is of my opinion that if I then shift my perspective to observe X or Y, they would become A, and could only be observed to be lower if they were further than A! It is not possible to observe a curve moving away from me as regardless of my position it would not be visible, so what altitude is required to observe this ANYWAY?
      Also, my position could technically be higher than A because any point of observation on a sphere, (baring elevations) would be higher than any other observable point.

      However – QUOTE the results and tests regarding lasers! I still can’t find any!!!


      Who says it is the bottom or the side or even if there is a top, an up, or even a down?
      We cannot argue that it is more logical for a Flat planet locked into a table top frame support, surrounded by a dome, is any more ridiculous than a Sphere and Gravity.
      I can appreciate certain logical perspectives and religious observations, but Wright’s Gravity Law must be observed also beforehand.

      Google or Youtube – Wright’s Gravity Law –
      LAW not THEORY (I claim neither, however, it is the only demonstration of gravity ever displayed).


      SPIRIT LEVELS ARE USED EVERY SECTION! The level would always be relative with no comparison to be drawn

      Cannon BALLS

      Remember, also that you are assuming that the bullet being fired is from stationary spot. It is actuality being fired from an atmosphere travelling at same speed and thus the bullet would be start out travelling at 16 miles per second, plus the speed of the bullet. So if two planes are in a dog fight at 2000 miles per hour the bullet being fired would start out travelling at 2000 miles per hour plus the speed of the bullet. And if the co-pilot threw an orange to the pilot??? Of course he would not have to throw it at 2001mph to reach the pilot!

      There is something definitely very wrong if GPS does not work in the Southern Hemisphere, or is disabled on any flight in this half of the planet / disc / doughnut.

      There is something wrong if the South Pole is ‘OFF LIMITS’.

      There is something very wrong with NASA.

      Nothing can prove the planet is the size or shape claimed short of independently verifiable measurements


  7. Freebird August 10, 2015 at 5:46 pm Reply

    The Felix Baumgartner stratosphere jump is using a fish eye lens. How else can you see a convex horizon when the camera looks down below the horizon, a flat horizon when it is parallel with to the horizon, and Concave horizon when the camera is raised above the horizon. Not to mention the supposed photos from looking out the window of the ISS obviously show the same kind of pictures you get from the Weather balloon videos, or the “GO FAST” private Rocket world record of 72 miles up, when the ISS is suppose to be 200 miles. Also how come you cannot see any Satellites in any of the video of the ISS or other private rocket launch videos . Bahahahaha, but we are the crazy ones……. Believe what you want….


  8. Chris Carter August 18, 2015 at 11:07 pm Reply

    Freebird,you are welcome to your flat earth. If the earth is flat, please explain how the earth casts a curved shadow over the moon during a lunar eclipse?


    • jwlpeace August 19, 2015 at 3:57 pm Reply

      Many answers are still unknown. Many stars have their own binary “brown” star like Sirius A and B, yet B cannot be seen. this could be one explanation.
      here are other theories for your consideration.


    • IP January 4, 2017 at 9:10 pm Reply

      Please explain the visibility of both the Sun AND the Moon during several eclipses.


  9. L September 5, 2015 at 4:15 am Reply

    After all of you hash this all out and finally figure out who is correct, of what magnitude of difference will any of it make? We are race hell-bent on killing itself through so many different means that this silly arguement pales in comparison and falls short of importance. Whether it is a sphere or it is flat will not make us better humans, nor will it be a key factor in if this earth is to survive another 50 years…now will it? NO. So either agree to disagree and let us get on to more important things or lets just give up on this life and sit down and just yell at each other until we all are dead. 🙂 Happy? Me too.


    • jwlpeace September 6, 2015 at 3:31 pm Reply

      unless we are infinite souls who have to come back again and again and again to the hell hole we have created until we ALL learn that the only solution is to LOVE one another. First we have to fully expose the agenda that controls all so we can begin to change what must change. Our children deserve all we have to at least try, no matter how great the challenge or how massive the odds are stacked against us. Never give up. Never.


  10. Ildarion January 10, 2016 at 10:05 am Reply

    “And why are you not having to adjust to the Earth trucking around the Sun at some 533 million miles between birthdays or at 68,000 mph or over 1,000 miles per SECOND (533,000,000/365/24/60/60)?”
    All your series of questions regarding this particular subject made me really wonder if you belong to a new species, would be one more argument in favour of Evolution(which is a theory in the sense of, a SCIENTIFIC theory, scientific theories don’t need to be proven, they ARE the highest degree of proof).
    So the answer of your question contains only 4 words; relative speed and perspective.
    Let me illustrate both:
    You’re driving on the highway, and there is a car to your left, driving too, at the same speed, do you have to move your eyes to keep your vision on the car? No.
    Now perspective. Hold your finger right to the right side of your right eye, move it 30 cm to the left. To follow the movement, your eyes have to fully rotate. Extend your arm and move 30 cm at arm lenght, the angle your eyes have now to make is tiny. If you were to move your finger at 1 lightyear of distance, over A FULL LIGHTYEAR, your eyes would only need to move only a bit more than 50°. That is LESS than when you move 30 cm right next to your face.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Anonymous February 28, 2016 at 11:59 am Reply

    The light house argument is wrong because it’s set up incorrectly. You don’t want to measure your view angle like a tangent from your vantage point to the light house, but rather as a chord through the circle created by the earth’s cross section between your location and the tower’s location. Basically, imagine a mound of dirt between you and a tower. You want to know how high the mound has to be to obscure the tower. A mound of that height would be much lower than the height of a line drawn at a tangent to that mound. Doing the math correctly shows that the Statue of Liberty should in fact disappear below the horizon around 45 miles away (further the taller you are) and at that point not be the 1,000+ feet below the horizon claimed by the misinformed. If you’d like to try yourself, it’s basically the drop below the horizon in feet = .167 x distance away squared in miles. Statue of Liberty is 325′ above sea level. .167 x (44.2 miles)^2 = .167 x 1953.64 = 326.26 feet.

    If you still can’t see this, draw a circle on a piece of paper. That’s the earth. put a dot at the top representing where you are standing and label that A. Then a second dot at about where the 2 would be on a clock face along the circle and label that B. That second dot represents where a tower is. Put a third dot on the circle half way between the first two points you drew (where the 1 would be on a clock). Label that X. Draw a line between A and B (that’s called a chord). Draw a second line between the center point of the circle and X. You can see if you are looking from A to B, there is a mound of earth that is a certain height that is measured by the distance between point X and the line between A and B along that line you drew to the center of the earth. That distance, let’s call it D, is what has to be the same height as a tower for it to disappear below the horizon.

    If you draw a dotted line that heads straight to the right from point A (that’s a tangent), you’ll see that ends up being a lot higher off the ground above point B then the height of the mound (D).

    This is consistent with a spherical earth.


  12. Don Jennings June 27, 2016 at 4:40 pm Reply

    Ildarion, where do you get 1000 miles per SECOND as Earth velocity around the sun? Using your figures of 533 million miles, there are about 33 million seconds in a year. 533/33 is more like 16 miles per second not 1000.
    You need some remedial math.

    In a flat Earth, from a plane flying at 30,000 feet cruising altitude, you should be able in a night flight to see most of the lights of the entire planet from your plane’s window.

    NOBODY sees that and that is a FACT JACK. If you have a telescope looking at the horizon you would see the horizon and a bit more due to atmospheric refraction but on an airless body like the moon you would never get to see over the apparent horizon because there is no lensing effect and a laser could be used to make judgements as to how far the horizon is, but not on Earth since a laser would be deflected just like the mirage you see that is past the horizon.


    • grs June 28, 2016 at 1:01 am Reply

      “In a flat Earth, from a plane flying at 30,000 feet cruising altitude, you should be able in a night flight to see most of the lights of the entire planet from your plane’s window.”

      My gosh I wish I had dime’s worth of bitcoin for every time I’ve heard that statement from a baller just getting his flat earth feet wet.


      Click to access Perspective_Made_Easy.pdf

      It’s a classic. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

      “Atmospheric refraction” is a fantasy. Here in this time lapse you will see that atmospheric conditions obviously change from morning to day to night, completely obliterating any claim that refraction, which depends on perfect atmospheric conditions of a warm air inversion layer, is the cause.


  13. Thomas J Budas August 26, 2016 at 6:56 am Reply

    Thank you Eric
    Don’t worry it’s a done deal.
    No-one even knew to look before, but WE DO NOW 🙂
    And the high class snobs in England were so smart, they let Alfred Russel Wallace, the British Naturalist, explorer, geographer, Anthropologist, biologist, Surveyor, Co-discoverer of the THEORY of Natural Selection, etc… Knighted,? Mason,? Magician,?
    TRICK them with a 3 foot RISE in the MIDDLE of a 6 foot stretch of canal.
    The PRESS ate it up !
    A great laugh, the fools, ego would think the earth was FLAT.
    EXCEPT, They were the fools who walked away thinking the water curved up before their eyes 3 feet at the 4 mile mark. Instead of DOWN.
    Well it’s in the books, the earth is round, theodolite for all !!


  14. Paul N October 21, 2016 at 8:06 pm Reply

    Here is the one question that I need to have answered . . .
    How can you force the concept of curvature (8 inches per mile) upon a liquid element (oceans)whose one incontrovertible property is to be self-leveling?


    • SG Today October 22, 2016 at 8:19 pm Reply

      Can you describe what your definition of “level” is, and what you would ascribe self-leveling to?

      Are these terms ever used somewhat differently depending on the context or scale whre applied?


      • jwlpeace October 22, 2016 at 11:16 pm

        SEA LEVEL
        AERO PLANE
        FLAT EARTH
        WAKE UP


    • Elizabeth McGreevy January 4, 2017 at 8:45 pm Reply

      and how can you spin a bucket of water and it doesn’t fall out?


      • semaj March 10, 2017 at 10:35 pm

        Centrifugal force and the water is still inside the bucket! Put water on the outside of the bucket and it will not matter how fast or a slow you spin it the water will not cling to the bucket! Centrifugal force will always try to throw an object away from it. That’s why vehicle tyres work in the wet because the tread cuts through the water and throws it away! That’s why they create spray. So the earth’s spin if it existed would not be able to contain the trillions of tons of water. It’s also how bikes go around corners you always have to adjust the lean angle to stop falling of the edge of the road. Tyres also grow at speed it’s simply that bloody centrifugal force again. I suppose someone will now tell me its gravity pulling the tyre off and then pushing back on as it slows down!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: