If you are new to this blog, I strongly recommend that you start reading from the beginning. A complete list of posts can be found on the new and improved Start page, or in the drop-down menu above, so from now on I won’t be posting the list of posts before every post. 🙂

To begin this post, allow me to make two points:

Firstly, in *The Torus and Ancient Cosmology* we derived a *mathematical* model of the Universe according to magnetism, mathematics (i.e. sacred geometry, vector equilibrium, and phi), ancient cosmology, and nature.

Now, you may say that **“****this is only a model****” –** and despite the fact that it is based *entirely* on nature, vector equilibrium, phi, and sacred geometry (upon which everything we can see, feel, hear, taste, and touch is based on), it still remains only a model (*based on what we’ve covered so far*)…

… and I’ll agree with you on that.

Secondly, in *The Greatest Liars of All Time* you saw that NASA has been faking all their imagery and videos of space, the moon, planets, and the Earth itself, and we also saw in *The Torus and Ancient Cosmology *that the UN logo features a Flat Earth map…

Now, you may say that “**this is only circumstantial evidence****” **–** **that is, just because this map appears on the UN logo, and that NASA has lied and shown us a bunch of fake pictures and videos doesn’t necessarily make the model shown above true…

… and again, I’ll agree with you there too.

This is why we’re now going to take a **look** at the **physical world** around us to ** see** what conclusions we can make.

You’ll be happy to hear that in this post there will be no complicated magnetism, no owls, and no evil freemasons…

… It’ll be just You, Me, and ~~Dupree~~ our eyes. 🙂

In this post we will start letting__ go__ of what we have ** been told** our whole lives, and trusting our instinct – trusting what OUR EYES are telling us,

*not*what someone else has told us is true…

Some common sense wouldn’t go amiss either…

For ease of understanding I’ve scattered appropriate videos and links throughout to illustrate my explanations, and I recommend that you watch these as you read through.

To keep posts as concise as possible I try to pick out only the shortest videos to illustrate my points, but should you like more information on any of the topics we will discuss in this post, I recommend that you check out the following youtube playlists:

- Fake World Reality (Shazwar Bugti): Probably the best place to start if you are new to this subject, as it has packed a lot of great information and many illustrative animations into 12 well-constructed videos that cover most of the questions I will cover in this post.
- Flat Earth (Richard K): A collection of videos that I have picked out (in no particular order).
- Flat Earth (DITRH): This playlist has over 250 good videos where you should be able to find answers to any lingering questions.

### Important Note About Sources

Please note that just because I have posted something from a particular youtube channel or website does not mean that I agree with *everything else* on that channel or site. There are plenty of people out there putting out great videos on certain topics who also put out utter garbage on others…

As you can probably imagine, this subject is particularly rife with **disinformation** and **misinformation**, which can waste your time, confuse you, turn you off the subject entirely, and/or mislead you by guiding you down wrong paths.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what I said in my earlier posts…

You should be questioning *everything* – and that includes what you are reading in this blog.

I am not asking you to believe anything you read, only that you do read it, and consider *all* the facts for yourself.

On your journey to truth, don’t follow anyone – including me. You lead. Come to your own conclusions.

Only you can climb the mountain…

… though a helping hand along the way never hurt anyone 😉

With that said, let’s dive right in shall we!

To begin, go to your window and draw your blinds…

Now, look outside… and tell me, what do you ** see**?

Yes, that is the horizon…

## Horizon

Now tell me… when you look at the horizon, do you see this…

1.

…. or this:

2.

Well that was easy…

Seriously though, the truth is that no matter where or how high up you go, the horizon will always be flat:

Here’s a question for anyone who thinks we are on a ball:

The answer to the question above is that no matter how high up one goes, the horizon is always flat, and always at eye level:

An example of this can be taken from Felix Baumgartner’s Red Bull jump in 2012… the real purpose of which was to try to reiterate to millions of people that the Earth is curved…

*“How come the Earth is curved in that picture then?” *

Well…a fish-eye lens does that trick…

What’s funny is that Red Bull camera crew clearly exaggerated the camera angle in their attempt to justify the ball Earth, as it looks as if the state of New Mexico covers half of the (imaginary) ball Earth!

As you can see below, the camera from inside the capsule (which didn’t have a fish-eye lens) shows a familiar picture of the horizon compared to the exterior fish-eye lens camera…

## Curvature (or lack thereof…)

According to “scientists”, the Earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,959 miles (6,371km)…

As such, we should be able to calculate the amount of curvature there *should* be on the globe…

… and then compare it to what we see in real life.

Alrighty then…

With some geometry and clever maths we can derive this formula for the Earth’s curvature per mile:

**(8 inches) x (distance in miles)² = drop height (in inches)**

This formula is derived from first principles for your reference below, but don’t worry if maths isn’t your thing, as you don’t really need to understand the derivation itself – it is only there for reference and clarity (i.e. so you know that I haven’t just made it up!).

Please don’t get bogged down by the numbers here. If you want, you can even skip the mathematical derivation by scrolling down until the next grey line 🙂

*** Thinking cap on ***

#### Derivation of Formula for Curvature of a Globe

We start with Pythagoras’ Theorem:

This theorem can be used to derive a formula for the drop height (per mile) that we should see on a ball…

Note that the length *c* above is equivalent to *b + the drop height, *where *b* is the radius*…… (*in the working below *R + h *denotes *c*).

Looking below, the first step substitutes d, R, and *R + h* into Pythagoras theorem in the place of a, b, and c….

c² = a² + b²

… and after that the equation is solved to isolate *d* and *h*, though are really only interested in the formula for h (the one circled with a “2” below)…

The next step involves some basic algebra and a Taylor series…

It looks more complicated than it is, but don’t worry if you don’t understand it, it’s not necessary to become a PhD in mathematics to understand things further on.

*** Thinking cap off ***

With that derivation in our back pocket, we now know for sure that the formula for curvature per mile can be estimated by that earlier formula:

**(8 inches) x (distance in miles)² = drop height (in inches)**

Here is a short video for those who would like a more visual picture of what’s going on:

Putting some numbers into that formula, we see that the curvature in:

- 1 mile will be 8 x 1² = 8 inches
- 2 miles will be 8 x 2² = 32 inches = 2.6 ft = 0.8m
- 3 miles will be 8 x 3² = 72 inches = 6 ft = 1.83m
- 4 miles will be 8 x 4² = 128 inches = 10.7 ft = 3.3m
- 5 miles will be 8 x 5² = 200 inches = 16.7 ft = 5.1m
- …
- 10 miles will be 8 x 10² = 800 inches = 66.7 ft = 20.3m
- 20 miles will be 8 x 20² = 3,200 inches = 267 ft = 81m
- …
- 50 miles will be 8 x 50² = 20,000 inches = 1667 ft = 508m = 0.32 miles
- 100 miles will be 8 x 100² = 80,000 inches = 6667 ft = 2,032m = 1.26 miles
- …

For your reference, here is a curvature calculator that you can use for yourself.

Below is a fitting illustration (though clearly not to scale):

This website is also a useful reference with regards to curvature, and even includes a nice excel spreadsheet that was used to derive a slightly more precise estimate. For all intents and purposes though the formula above is accurate enough for distances less than 1000 miles (i.e. it is accurate to within 1 inch at 22-23 miles) .

Now, before we continue I briefly want to show you another lie…

### Important Note

For those who want to look into this for themselves, do not be deceived by Google’s answer to “curvature of the Earth”:

As you can see above, Google (just like many other mainstream sources) tries to deceive you by telling you that the curvature is 8 inches **per mile**… which conveniently leaves out the fact that one needs to *square* the distance in miles for curvature on a ball:

**(8 inches) x (distance in miles)² = drop height (in inches)**

Not squaring means that you would be calculating a linear drop, which is exemplified in the graph below.

Note that the graph below is only a *visual example of a linear drop* – and is not to scale…

… Nonetheless, what I have tried to illustrate is this:

If the y-axis represents drop height in inches, and the x-axis represents distance in miles (with 100 on the x-axis being 1 mile), then a drop of *8 inches per mile* would be a straight line… and not a curve (as on a ball)…

Thus, the formula given to you by Google is clearly…

And for what its worth, you will only start to find legitimate curvature articles starting from about page 3 on Google searches… which is further than 99% of people would ever look.

Mathematics doesn’t lie, but Google clearly does!

And with that said, we can add Google to the growing list of liars we have encountered so far…

Anyways, back to the curvature…

You can now forget all that maths above, as the important thing to pay attention to is shown in this nice table:

As shown in the table,

- at a distance of 10 miles, you would expect to see a drop (curvature) of 67 feet (20.3 meters)…

and

- at a distance of 20 miles, you would expect to see a drop (curvature) of 267 feet (81.7m)…

This means that, two places **20 miles apart** should have a curvature of **267 feet** (**81.7m**) between them…

Now, I think we can agree that the points at either end of a couple of these photos are at least 20 miles apart…

… so why don’t we see any curvature *at all* (i.e the red lines are perfectly flat), let alone a curvature of 267ft (81.7m)?…

Furthermore, if the Earth is a sphere with radius of 3,959 miles (6,371 km), this means that if you are looking at a skyscraper 10 miles away, you would expect to not see the bottom 67ft (20.3m) of it…

… that is, anything below the line from T to N in this illustration wouldn’t be visible (as it would be blocked by the ground in front of you)…

… However, this curvature is certainly *not* seen in real life…

As mentioned in the illustration above, the buildings in the skyline 60 miles away should be leaning away from the camera if we were on a ball, but that is quite clearly *not* the case.

There is clearly quite a bit of “missing” curvature…

ABC news actually tried to explain this by calling it “a mirage”…

In case you want video proof, here is another example, this time showing no curvature from **31.63 miles** away in Santa Barbara, California…

**Expected curvature**= 8 x 31.63² = 8,004 in = 667ft =**203.2m**….. but, no curvature seen:

To hammer this home, here’s one last example… where you can see Midtown, Manhattan all the way from Bear Mountain, New Jersey, **60 miles away**…

**Expected curvature**= 8 x 60² = 28,800in = 2,400ft =**731.5m**….. but again, no curvature seen:

Needless to say:

No curvature = no globe…

Scientists like to use maths to “prove” the globe Earth…

… but as you’ve seen until now, not even **basic** maths supports their model!

Below is a particularly good summary of what we’ve discussed above, and it also introduces the behaviour of water with regards to (the lack of) curvature…

#### Behaviour of Water

The text above ends by talking about water in a canal being stationary and plane, and given that water always finds its level it’s safe to say that curvature is a myth…

As everyone can clearly *see with their eyes*, in any body of water, whether it be a cylinder, glass, river, ocean, lake, etc, water will always find its (perfectly flat) level:

The video below does an excellent job of outlining the behaviour of water and curvature, including the Bedford Level experiment spoken of in the text above:

There’s a reason why we were all confused by this in school… because it’s all nonsense!

Now, surely all those smart adults out there would know better?…

Well, no one ever thought to think twice… not even the “smart” guys…

**Engineers and Architects**

Whilst we’re on about engineers, here’s a little something about me for those readers who don’t know me… 🙂

Why am I showing you this?

Simply because…

No, seriously though, having seen through the lies of our ~~education~~ indoctrination system this piece of paper means absolutely nothing to me…

However, I’m showing it to you for two reasons:

1. To show you that I can confirm from *personal experience* that Masters degree engineering students ** NEVER** encounter curvature;

… and

2. As I have studied (and somehow understood!) Newtonian physics and calculus in a great deal of depth, I can tell you from *personal experience* that it’s *all* a load of #*&%… all meant to confuse us and make us think that the world we live in is really complicated…

The truth is simple, but they’ve got us chasing complex made up maths in school to keep us confused…

Anyways, enough about me (…and bulls***)…

The fact that I studied engineering isn’t really evidence of anything at all, so take that with a pinch of salt…

The point here though is that curvature of the Earth is NEVER accounted for in the building of long railway tracks, bridges, roads, buildings, etc, which should tell you that it doesn’t exist.

This article talks about this in more detail for those who want to read more about engineers.

Now then, you might ask, if there is no curvature,…

… why can’t we see the hull of this ship?…

The photo below from a wikipedia article on the horizon shows a similar scene, and has the following caption:

*“A view across a 20-km-wide bay on the coast of Spain. Note the curvature of the Earth hiding the base of the buildings on the far shore.”*

This is the explanation provided to us by Wikipedia and textbooks…

… So this then proves that the Earth is curved right?…

Argh, I guess everything I’ve said up til now is wrong then!…

… Hang on just a sec Nelson…

… Let me show you something…

You may have noticed something in the photo of the railroad above…

… which brings us to the next topic…

## Perspective

When looking out to sea or down a hallway for example, everything will converge to the level of the horizon and vertical center-line:

The lines are all parallel, but appear to be converging the closer you get to the vanishing point…

This is why, in the photo below, you can see the ground appearing to rise, and the clouds appearing to get lower the further away they are from you…

The ground and clouds **do not change in height**, but they do *relative to you* – because of perspective!

Here is a side-on illustration of what is happening:

Here’s a very common immediate question asked… with a very logical answer…

The point at which receding lines of perspective converge is called the vanishing point…

… and it is called the “*vanishing*” point for a very good reason….

… because we physically cannot see further than that point… (photos below from here):

A quick note on the blind spot shown on the right above:

*A particular blind spot known as the physiological blind spot, “blind point”, or punctum caecum in medical literature, is the place in the visual field that corresponds to the lack of light-detecting photoreceptor cells on the optic disc of the retina where the optic nerve passes through the optic disc… *as circled here:

Thus, the image we see doesn’t go further than the black line shown below (left), and so the view our eyes see is the one shown below (right)… anything beyond the vanishing point (plus what is in the blind spot – in this case a cloud) will be out of sight, and *appear* to have gone “over” a horizon!

Thus, the ship in the photograph below is not actually any lower (due to curvature), but the hull of the ship is simply beyond the vanishing point on the horizon!

Still want more proof?

Well, if what I just explained is true, then it would mean that a camera or telescope – which can see further than the naked eye, should be able to bring the hull of the ship *back into view*, even though it has been “hidden by the curvature of the Earth”…

… and as you can see in the video below (or this computerized animation) this is indeed the case…

If the hull of a ship or a building moved out of our sight simply because “*the curvature of the Earth [was] hiding the base of the buildings on the far shore.”*, then it would be *completely impossible* for a telescope with longer range than our naked eye to bring them back into view again!

Here is another quick video illustrating this:

The reason why the top of the building in the photo above isn’t visible to the naked eye is due to perspective, as the building is beyond the naked eye’s vanishing point.

Below is another visual example so you can better understand what is happening in the photo above.

Here you see a photo of the Watercrest Gardens Apartments at Far Rockaway, NY.

The photo is taken from a beach in Middletown, New Jersey:

The apartment building has 21 floors, as shown here…

… yet we only see 13 of them from Middletown, NJ…

This is due to the horizon cutting out the bottom 8 windows (and trees) from view.

Now, if the cameraman had a stronger camera, he could bring some of the lower floors into view again… because the stronger camera’s vanishing point is further away.

This is exactly what happened in the photo shown below, where the cameraman brought the top of the building into view again with a stronger camera:

As you can see, the horizon is clearly a line of convergence, not the curvature of a ball!

Now then, we have seen that clouds converge toward the horizon…

Below is a good illustration of why that happens.

Note also that the Earth’s terrain usually creates a “false horizon” that is closer than the vanishing point would otherwise be, in this case the mountain:

This video paints a clearer picture if you need it:

As you can see from the illustration above and the (time-lapse) photo below, the sun seems to follow the lines of perspective and disappear beyond the horizon as well…

… and as you will see in this well-made video, there is absolutely no doubt about what is happening with the sun…

Below is another good illustrative video, which also includes some relevant lyrics from this guy (who you met briefly in *Festivals of Fire*)…

As you can see in the videos, the sun isn’t actually changing height at all, it simply appears to move up and down because of perspective as it gets farther away or closer to us… until it “sets” due to disappearing beyond the vanishing point!

The sun “setting” is simply an illusion due to perspective…

The photos and videos above clearly show that the sun is close, and doesn’t change height.

Nonetheless, in the next post we will look into the sun in much more detail to prove this beyond all doubt.

Make sure to bring your sunglasses 😉

Until then, think about these questions:

I leave you with this song, which inspired the title of this post… and because, well, everybody’s gotta learn [the truth] sometime…

To be continued…

Pingback: 23. Destined for Oblivion | THE NARROW GATE

Pingback: 24. Made in a Hollywood Basement | THE NARROW GATE

Pingback: 27. The Stars Declare the Truth | THE NARROW GATE

Pingback: Destroying Gravity by Richard | Plane Not A Planet

Richard, did you see that Google’s gmail logo is the masonic apron? https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Filluminatisymbols.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Filluminati-symbols-royal-arch-masonry-gmail.jpg&f=1

LikeLike

Yes indeed it is! I’ll include that it a later blog post. Thanks!

LikeLike

Very interesting. I have never seen such an in-depth look at flat earth. Makes my head spin.

LikeLike

How to explain Google Earth ? This app is based on a globe model and depicts nearly all land. If the earth is flat then this Google Earth is wrong and the proportion of some continents are wrong. Australia then, which has a certain height to wideness ratio on Google Earth, should have a different one in the real life of the flat model. But then how does Google Earth manages to deal with all these different ratios ?

LikeLiked by 1 person

Good question. 🙂

The mercator projection map requires the sizes of continents to be massively skewed in order to fit them onto a globe. This is why the map makes Greenland look like the same size as Africa, even though Africa is in actuality over 14 times larger in area.

Google Earth is only a computerized animation of what the Earth would look like if it was projected onto a globe – but as with the Greenland example above it fails to accurately capture the proportions of many countries and continents due to the fact that the Earth is not, in actuality, a globe.

Kind Regards,

Richard

LikeLiked by 1 person

So you mean that they took the real flat earth map and projected it on a globe. Then they took this projection and put is on a mercator projection. Ok.

I still dont get something : if you look at “Gleason’s New Standard Map Of The World” which is said to represents FE, the height to width ratio of Australia is arround 1/3 (height = 0.3 width). However if you look at Google earth even in satellite view the ration is arround 1/2.

So i dont get how they manage to make a 1/3 look like a 1/2 on satellite views, i mean they can’t just cut some parts of Australia or squeeze the picture.

So either Gleason is wrong or Google earth has a serious tricking method

LikeLike

Your derivation of the 8″ per mile squared formula is unnecessarily complicated and seems to be designed to confuse. There’s no need for Taylors series or anything more complicated than simple arithmetic.

Starting as you did with Pythagoras (R + H)^2 = D^2 + R^2

expanding the LHS gives R^2 + 2HR + H^2 = D^2 + R^2

subtracting R^2 from each side and rearranging H(2R + H) = D^2

so H = D^2 / (2R + H)

If H is very small compared to 2R this can be approximated to H = D^2 / 2R

This is the same result you got ie 8″ per mile squared. Now checking to see how much effect the approximation has. For say D=1000 miles, H = 126 miles. which expressed as a fraction of 2R is about 3%. So this approximation is good up to 1000 miles with only 3% error and for a more typical 100 miles the error is less that 0.02%.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Thanks for commenting, much appreciated. I’m glad someone took the time to look over the calculation! 🙂

I agree that it is a bit over-the-top to use a taylor series, and the difference at 20 miles with or without the Taylor series approximation is less than 2 inches, so it’s pretty much negligible. That said, I’m a stickler for precision, and so I felt like including it.

In any case, the bottom line here is that the formula of “8 inches per mile SQUARED” is correct (and shows that there is ZERO curvature), and that’s what matters. 🙂

LikeLike

A formula for the curvature of a spherical earth does not say anything about the existence of any such curvature, that can only be determined by observation. It most certainly has not been demonstrated that there is no curvature as flat earthers often claim. There are a handful of poorly conducted and inconclusive tests on the internet by both flat earthers and globe believers. If you want to see a properly conducted scientific experiment to measure any curve that does or doesn’t exist then take a look at George Hnatiuk’s channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUO-mbxybVA&t=4s This test has not concluded yet but is the first one I’ve seen that is correctly takes all possible errors into account and defines the accuracy of the result.

LikeLike