Look around. Is every step you take tentative because you fear falling down the curved slope that is the world around you? Of course not. The notion that the world is not flat can be deemed erroneous simply by taking a walk. However, many theories attempt to prove this supposition through a series of claims that are not scientifically sound. Further, the science behind a flat earth has never been considered in the proper context and needs a thorough revisiting.

Let’s begin with the journey that first posited the claim that the earth is not flat. In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed a series of voyages in order to gather evidence to declare the world a sphere. Briefly stated, Christopher Columbus created a variety of maps that demonstrated the supposed spherical shape of the earth. However, after an investigation into this premature conclusion, it is more than evident that Columbus’s voyages do not adhere to the rigors of scientific exploration and are thus quite invalid. Columbus traveled three main voyages. Throughout his three voyages, Columbus used dead reckoning to determine his direction, for he did not believe in the accuracy of celestial navigation, which at the time was the most accurate means of navigation. Dead reckoning navigation is based on the estimation of the current position with respect to a previouslydetermined position (CITE). The validity of this technique is easily called into question. As any person with a modicum of physics knowledge knows, there exists a distinct difference between instantaneous and average velocity. Instantaneous velocity is the actual velocity at any given moment, and requires calculus to approximate infinitesimal time changes. Conversely, average velocity makes use of noninfinitesimal changes in distance over noninfinitesimal changes in time to approximate the velocity. The larger the change in time, the more susceptible the approximation is to error, since the velocity could markedly fluctuate in a large enough time interval. In Columbus’s case, he possessed only a rudimentary system for measuring the changes in both distance and time, as he relied on a sailors chant (CITE). The continuous errors that Columbus would have experienced in his attempts to accurately track his position would have compromised the validity of his efforts. Thus, the very bedrock on which the spherical world premise is based is faulty.

Before tackling the more modern accounts of the spherical Earth, the most primitive versions should be addressed, one of which is the Biblical evidence that the earth is spherical. In the book of Isaiah 40:22, it is mentioned that God “sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (CITE 2). For this assertion to be true, it must be that that everything mentioned in the Bible is true, as the only thing substantiating the claim is the divinity of it. If everything in the Bible is not true, then there exists no further evidence for that claim, as it loses its divinity factor. Unfortunately for this claim, the Bible does contain several contradictions (CITE 3), which means that it loses its absolute certainty. Consider the book of Genesis 32:30 (CITE 4) which says “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved”. On the other hand, the book of John 1:18 claims “No man hath seen God at any time” (CITE 5). Clearly, this is a contradiction so the validity of the spherical world claim in the book of Isaiah cannot be ascertained.

Debunking more contemporary (and therefore more convoluted) theories of this spherical earth require a more thorough examination. The most recognized theories that espouse a view of the Earth as spherical are based on the work of Sir Isaac Newton and his law for gravitation. The wellknown law is as follows:
F= G*m1*m2 / (r2)
Here, gravity is seen as a force that acts at a distance between two objects, and is based on a universal constant, G, the mass of each of the objects (m1 and m2), and a distance r separating the center of mass of the two objects. Based on manipulation of this law, a series of planetary laws originally devised by Johnnes Kepler can be produced (CITE 6). Kepler’s Third Law, in particular, insists that the earth is accelerating around the sun with a certain period (CITE 7). This period can be calculated, and is the familiar rotation that the earth spins around once every 23 hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds (CITE 8). Clearly, this string of logic begins to become convoluted and complex, and the physics and math of the situation prevent most people from being able to analyze these claims themselves. The string of logic described above, however, is all based on a single tenet: Isaac Newton’s law of gravitation. Unfortunately for the theory behind the rotating, spherical version of the earth, the brilliant physicist Albert Einstein came up with his own theory of gravitation that unequivocally proved Newton’s theory of gravitation incorrect for which he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics (CITE 9). If this is not proof enough that the contemporary theories are not compatible with a spherical earth, consider the work of Michelson and Morley. One of the most famous experiments in physics is the MichelsonMorley experiment, in which they sought out to prove that “ether” does or does not exist. As background, “ether” is the elusive substance that light supposedly traveled in. During the course of this novel experiment, it was found that it was impossible to rule out a velocity of zero for the Earth (CITE 10). This has stunning implications for contemporary theories of the spherical earth, since the contemporary theories all lead to the conclusion that the earth is rotating and spherical, which cannot be true since the MichelsonMorley experiment showed that the Earth is not rotating at all. Again, this experiment was so significant that they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1907 (CITE 11).

With the possible spherical earth objections disproven above, examples suggesting a flat earth can now be considered. Start with the most obvious example of walking. Nothing in the realm of human sight indicates any sort of nonflat surface to the earth. Certainly there are topological irregularities, but the basic structure of the Earth as we know it is uniformly flat. A drive from the Pennsylvania to California, for instance, would be impossible if the earth were not flat, as the car would encounter rapid changes in altitude inconsistent with the relatively flat drive we are intimately familiar with. This point can be elaborated on further, with the example of two people on polar opposite ends of the earth (CITE 12). Gravity as we know it pulls us towards the ground. If one person was at the top of a spherical Earth at the North Pole, he would be pulled downwards as we know from throwing any object into the air and watching it plummet. If another person were at the South Pole of a spherical Earth, he/she would also be pulled downwards, but since he/she would be at the most extreme downwards point on the earth, it only makes sense that he/she would fall off the Earth. Since humans have traveled to the purported South Pole region and have not fallen off the Earth, it must be that the Earth is flat and not spherical.

Another point consistent with a flat earth is that of water. As is well documented, the surface of the flat Earth is covered by 70 percent water in the form of oceans. Since water contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, it is a molecular with specific molecular properties. One such property is cohesion; that is, water molecules tend to stick tightly together (CITE 13). Therefore, when water in the south part of a spherical Earth experiences a downwards gravitational force, all the water should fall off the Earth en masse, as one molecule that falls off would pull another with it due to their cohesion, while this molecule would pull another ad infinitum. This phenomenon would be akin to pouring water on a basketball, and all the water would fall off together, rather than some remaining on the top (CITE 12). Empirically, we know that the oceans on the Earth have not fallen off, so the spherical model cannot be valid. The moon, which is clearly spherical in nature, contains no bodies of water, which is consistent with the fact that spherical plants cannot support bodies of water (CITE 12). The only way that the oceans could remain intact is via a flat earth.

In the scientific world that we live in, empirical data is requisite to supporting any theory. With this in mind, the physics of a flat world have been empirically confirmed. Scientist Samuel Rowbotham conducted a series of experiments over a tenyear period based on light refraction. His data supported the conclusion that the earth was, indeed, flat (CITE 14). It is hard to ignore empirical data, especially when the data is uniformly collected over such an extensive period of time. Another experiment also empirically confirmed the existence of a flat Earth. A woman by the name of Lady Anne Blount employed a photographer to take a highly sensitive picture with his camera held above the water. If the earth were indeed spherical, he would not be able to see a target object several miles down the river, as the water and object would curve down the geometry of the Earth. If the earth were flat, the target object would be seen in the picture. The results of the experiment showed that he was able to take a picture of the target and therefore prove the existence of a flat earth (CITE 15). When this experiment was reproduced by skeptic Ulysses Grant Morrow in 1896, he also found that he was able to take a picture of his target several miles down the river, despite his bias for a spherical Earth (CITE 15). Finally, eminent naturalist William Carpenter composed a series of one hundred scientific proofs that argued the Earth was nonspherical but rather flat (CITE 16). These experiments add great weight to the theory of the flat Earth and collectively verify the previously stated theoretical claims about a flat Earth.

A final angle to consider for the flat earth is the simple but elegant theory of Ockham’s razor. First posited by the logician William of Ockham, the theory essentially states that the more simplistic of two ideas is the best (CITE 17). Just as Einstein frowned upon the absurdly complicated model of quantum mechanics and instead advocated for his intuitively simple theory of the universe, the flat Earth model trumps the spherical model in its simplicity. The spherical model is rife with complexity: there is rotation of the Earth about its axis; there are these elliptical orbits about the solar system through which the Earth travels; there is an enigmatic center to the Earth that cannot be seen; complex laws of physics are needed to describe motion in the spherical world; the full threehundred sixty degrees are required to span the Earth. Even this curvature of the Earth is a principle that is more mathematically difficult to model than a flat topography. Conversely, the flat earth offers no rotation; no need for elliptical orbiting of plants; there is no need for a mysterious center of the Earth; no unnecessarily elaborate laws of physics are required; and finally only onehundred eighty degrees are required to span the flat Earth. Moreover, the flat Earth theory is filled with intuition and simple premises, whereas the spherical view must be contrived, which again closely parallels the contrasting theories of Einstein’s gravity and quantum mechanics. With all of this in mind, Ockham’s razor asserts that the flat Earth model should be correct, as it limits the number of assumptions and the complexity of the theory.

Overall, the numerous theories, both ancient and contemporary, that espouse the view of a nonflat world are grounded in speculation and nonrational claims. If each of these theories is examined through the lens of science, it becomes apparent that, for whatever reasons, civilization has falsely lived under the notion of a spherical earth. Each of the spherical theories uses logic that is inconsistent with the rigors of modern science. So, although entertaining the idea of a spherical Earth has been acceptable throughout history, it is time to dispel this myth in the spirit of scientific advancement and adopt the more scientifically sound model of the flat Earth. After all, the ancient Greeks advocated for a flat Earth, and as we have come to realize, history often repeats itself or gets it right the first time. Just as we now realize global warming has occurred in the past (CITE 17), the ideas of the Greeks are about to come full circle again with their notion of a flat earth. Just as no dominant empire has ever weathered the test of time, the fallacious theory of the spherical Earth will soon fall. In closing, the radical shift to the flat Earth theory should be no surprise at all, as, quite simply, it is before one’s very eyes.

CITE 1: http://www.columbusnavigation.com/dr.shtml
CITE 2: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:22
CITE 3: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
CITE 4: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032:30&version=9;
CITE 5: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;
CITE 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler’s_laws_of_planetary_motion
CITE 7: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KeplersThirdLaw.html
CITE 8: http://www.livephysics.com/tablesofphysicaldata/mechanical/angularspeedofearth.html
CITE 9: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
CITE 10: http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
CITE 11: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/
CITE 12: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
CITE 13: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)
CITE 14: Rowbotham, Samuel B. (“Parallax”). 1865. Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.
CITE 15: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
CITE 16: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
CITE 17: http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html