The Glass Ceiling
Chapter 14: Academic Arguments

Specious Arguments

Occasionally I discuss flat Earth with my friends. I ask sometimes why they cling to their belief in the big balls model.

My favorite:

Well because what's underneath?

The best answer I can give is another question: What do you get when you cross a rhinocerous with an elephant? - Elephino.

The bible says it's water.

I read that it's four elephants on the back of a giant tortoise swimming in a sea of milk. I'm waiting for the photographic confirmation.

Even so, globelings seem most happy with the orthodox explanation built on a core of molten iron. It doesn't help to point out that's silly. There seems to be comfort in having it all wrapped up. All right then. It's molten iron down there.

No I don't know how thick it is. We've never dug through it so it's thicker than that.

Everything else is round, why should the Earth be different?

This is a tough one all right. Saturn, Neptune and Uranus have rings so the Earth must have rings too.

It's all part of the space mythos and indoctrination. I think I had these on a lunch box in seventh grade. If I had come from one generation prior it would have been Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon.

Think this through. Where do those images come from?

Here's an amateur telescope picture of Venus. It seems to undulate and roll and bears more resemblance to a bubble than to a rock.

That's just atmospheric aberration!

No, the image stays put and doesn't dance around in the sky.

The "wandering stars" look quite different from what we are told. They may be some kind of sonoluminescent effect in the firmament. Their larger motions are consistent with a cymatic source.

Real pictures of Venus and Aldebaran above lack the drama of this rather excellent painting of Jupiter. Nicely lit isn't it? That's a bullseye texture in the alpha channel.

Have you ever seen a picture of Jupiter without its signature red spot? Me neither.

NASA gives us lovely pictures of all the planets in our solar system (except apparently Earth).

They even tell us what's inside the moons of distant planets. They must be using those new high tech X-Ray telescopes. Yup, molten iron.

Below is a real telescope picture of Jupiter.

Gravity would pull us toward the center / There is no gravity, it's all buoyancy

Gravity is mentioned only once in this paper, as the title of a Hollywood movie.

In the round Earth model, the small mass of your body is attracted to the large mass of the Earth and you fall toward the center of the planet.

On a flat Earth, gravity apparently points down. If the plane is infinite or there are waters below, gravity will point down with great consistency. Buoyancy is generally considered to result from gravity, so denial gives us nothing.

Our very concept of gravity is presumptive!

In the beginning, apples kept falling off the earth so Newton invented gravity to stop this from happening. Okay, maybe we're giving him too much credit.

Officially Newton was a brilliant man with brass balls. He believed that masses attract each other. His balls were very small so the force between them was very tiny - nanodynes. He made precise tiny measurements by cleverly using string and concluded that the attraction between two masses is given by GmM / r squared.

Modern mathematics has no analytic solution for the gravitational three body problem so it is convenient that Newton was not confounded by taking his measurements so close to the Earth. We should cut him some slack at any rate because he had recently received a serious bump on the head. Subsequent scientists sought to duplicate Newton's results with bigger balls and elaborate apparati, but results were inconclusive. Nobody has ever duplicated Netwton's precise and brilliant results.

According to Einstein and the Copenhagen Doctrine, gravity is a fundamental property of spacetime. Gravity is considered instant and constant in the calculation of orbital mechanics and there is no propagation delay. Gravity (slightly) bends light and spacetime is shaped by matter.

The Quantum guys figure that gravity is one of four fundamental forces in nature. It is caused by undetectable particles called gravitons which act at a distance in an undefined way. They say that the occasional ripple we see in the fabric of reality is not a glitch in the matrix but the result of the gravity waves they have just discovered.

Steven Smith's Electrogravitics explains gravity and inertia in terms of accepted particle charges and orbital handedness. Current thinking in elite inner circles of physics is that gravity is not a fundamental force, but a resultant or derivative force in a manner surprisingly consistent with Smith's calculations.

And, not to be left behind, the big bang guys weigh in with cosmic gravity as the cause of everything as it draws ultrahot matter into clumps, clusters, stars, spinning galaxies and primordial soup.

Gravity is absolutely required by the round Earth model, but is not denied on the Flat Earth. It just isn't a significant part of the argument.

It's a PsyOp by the CIA to divide the truth movement!

Ummm. Sure. The CIA probably has an opinion. They have an opinion about everything else.

Still, truth is truth. If it's silly, disprove it.

It's Just Silly!

Perhaps it's time to look at some of the silliness in the standard model. It seems that we know absolutely everything about space, but we've never been there.

Fifty years ago it was easy. Cotton suits and mylar fittings beat the radiation and the heat but the moon was boring and we never went back. Today it's too dangerous to go.

Dr. Van Allen was a famous astronomer and everybody believed him. Knowing that the Sun is big and hot and the Earth is round and full of molten iron, Van Allen said the molten iron core must be causing strong magnetic fields that contain all the radiation from the sun, and it was provably so because we don't get fried.

Science is compartmentalized and it is possible that Van Allen didn't know that iron loses magnetic properties at its Curie temperature, which is well below its melting point. But simple logic lacks the sex appeal of a flourished pen, and space maps were marked "Here be Dragons".

The standard model does not add up at all. Is there no room for honest investigation?

Rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push against

Rockets work by pushing an ejection mass away from them. If we were wrestling in space and you pushed me away, you'd go backwards with the same velocity you imparted to me. If I weigh 1,000 pounds, you'll push yourself away from me but I'll still move, albeit 1/10 as fast as you. If you throw a baseball in space, the Newtonian equal and opposite reaction will send you backwards at some small but finite speed. Rockets work by throwing very small baseballs. If you throw enough of them fast enough, you can actually get the big rocket moving.

If it was flat we'd fall off the edge / If it was round we'd fall off the bottom

The round model says we don't fall of the bottom. The flat model says we don't fall off the edge. Until somebody goes that far, we don't know there is an edge (as opposed to an infinite plane), or how far such an edge might be.

They showed...

This is always the beginning of an argument based on television truth. There was a video and talking heads nodded and looked wise. They showed it was absolutely possible for eighteen guys to take flight training on Cessnas, hijack some jets with box cutters so their evil boss could meditate in a cave to shut down the entire defense system so they could fly around for three hours and execute impossible aerobatic maneuvers as George reads to primary schoolers because that's what presidents do.

In this very document they showed George and Sandra cavorting in space, the insides of planets, moon landings, and Earth pictures from Mars.

Back to The Map Contents Next: It Matters!

Home Forum About Contact Us