Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.
“Is water level, or is it not?’ was a question once asked of an astronomer. ‘Practically, yes; theoretically, no,’ was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say ‘So much the worse for the facts!’) To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, the surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
“Since any given body of water must have a level surface, no one part higher than another, and seeing that all our oceans (a few inland seas excepted) are connected together, it follows that they are all VIRTUALLY OF THE SAME LEVEL.” -The English Mechanic, 26th, June 1896
Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They say that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. For example, a spinning wet tennis ball has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. Again, their theory flies in the face of all practical evidence, but they have been running with it for 500 years, so why stop now?
“If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through ‘space’ at the rate of ‘a hundred miles in five seconds of time,’ the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface - the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth - that is, the habitable world of dry land - is found to be ‘standing out of the water and in the water’ of the ‘mighty deep,’ whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (86)
In one portion of its long route, the great river Nile flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot! This is a feat which, of course, would be a sheer impossibility if the Earth had spherical curvature. Many other rivers including the Congo in West Africa, the Amazon in South America, and the Mississippi in North America all flow for thousands of miles in directions totally incompatible with the supposed globularity of the Earth as well.
“Rivers run DOWN to the sea because of the inclination of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in some cases thousands of feet above the sea, they follow the easiest route to their level - the sea. The ‘Parana’ and ‘Paraguay’ in South America are navigable for over 2,000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if the world be a globe, the ‘Amazon’ in South America that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the movement of the globe. Then the ‘Congo’ in West Africa, that always pursues a westerly course to the sea, would in the same manner be running alternately up and down. When that point of the globe exactly between them was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite directions; and when the globe took half a turn, they would both be running down! We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal - whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (110)
“Whoever heard of a river in any part of its course flowing uphill? Yet this it would require to do were the Earth a Globe. Rivers, like the Mississippi, which flow from the North southwards towards the Equator, would need, according to Modem Astronomic theory, to run upwards, as the Earth at the Equator is said to bulge out considerably more, or, in other words, is higher than at any other part. Thus the Mississippi, in its immense course of over 3,000 miles, would have to ascend 11 miles before it reached the Gulf of Mexico!” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (126)
“There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth’s surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an ‘up’ and a ‘down’ in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (85)
The Always Flat Horizontal Horizon
Whether at sea-level, the top of Mount Everest, or flying a hundred thousand feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line always rises up to meet the eye-level of the observer and remains perfectly flat. You can test for yourself on a beach or hilltop, in a large field or desert, aboard a hot-air balloon or helicopter; you will see the panoramic horizon ascend with you and remain completely level all around. If the Earth were actually a big ball, however, the horizon should sink as you ascend, not rise to your eye-level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery, not remain flat all around. Standing in a rising balloon, you would have to look downwards to the horizon; the highest point of the ball-Earth would be directly beneath you and declining on each side.
In an editorial from the London Journal, July 18, 1857, one journalist described quite the opposite in his hot-air balloon ascent, “The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.” J. Glaisher wrote in his, “Travels in the Air,” that “On looking over the top of the car, the horizon appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its great regularity; all was dwarfed to one plane; it seemed too flat.” M. Victor Emanuel, another hot-air balloonist, wrote that, “Instead of the earth declining from the view on either side, and the higher part being under the car, as is popularly supposed, it was the exact opposite; the lowest part, like a huge basin, being immediately under the car, and the horizon on all sides rising to the level of the eye.” Yet another American hot-air balloonist, Mr. Elliot wrote, “The aeronaut may well be the most skeptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy forces the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is directly under one’s feet.” And in Mayhew’s “Great World of London,” one aeronaut recorded that, “Another curious effect of the aerial ascent was, that the Earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared concave, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the Earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a concave rather than a convex body.”