Flat Earth is NOT the Answer: a Response to Philip Stallings Part III

Mark Wyatt

I want to wrap up my critique of Phillip Stallings’ “The Biblical Flat Earth: A Response To The Principle”.

In Part I I addressed his criticism of my correlating flat earths’ exponential Google Trends response to the release of The Principle in October 2014. In Part II I discussed how satellite imaging works, and why the results of satellite imaging may not be what Phillip Stallings expected based on the nature of pixel size, image masking, etc. Phillip Stallings also tried to argue that we should be able to see a lot of space junk, etc., which I demonstrated would not be the case give the nature of the imaging devices used.

The final part of the article is a shotgun blast of statements intended to invalidate the possibility of satellites even existing. I will not attemp to back out all his implications and prove them wrong. Satellites move “fast”. I do not understand why that is an issue to Philllip Stallings. For instance he says:

“It seems odd to me that the geostationary velocity is 1.91 miles per second while the actual spin of the earth at the equator is 1,040 mph. If you translate 1,040 mph into miles per second it becomes 0.29 miles per second. So that is 1.91 miles per second (satellite velocity) vs. 0.29 miles per second (earth’s rotation speed at the Equator).”

It is not odd at all. Assuming the earth rotates on its axis (as Phillp Stallings is doing), then yes, velocity at the equator is 1040 mph relative to the field of non-rotating stars. Ok. Now if the satellite is geostationary, that means it is not moving relative to the earth’s surface. The satellite is sitting at 22,236 miles from the earth’s surface according to Phillip (based on Wikipedia). Ok.

So, the earth’s surface which is at 3963 miles from the center of the earth is traveling at 1040 mph. The satellite is sitting at 22,236 + 3963=26,199 miles from the center of the earth. Both must be traveling at the same angular speed (roughly 360 degrees per 24 hours or one rotation per day). So based on that, the satellite must be traveling at 1040 mph x (26,199/3963)=6875 mph. So the satellite is traveling (6875/1040)=6.6x faster than the surface of the earth. The satellite is (26,199 mi/3963 mi)=6.6x farther away from the center of the earth. See the pattern? Or in Phillp Stallings’ language, the satellite is traveling 1.91 miles per second/0.29 miles per second=6.6 x faster than the surface of the earth. It needs to travel faster to stay over the earth in one spot because it is travelling a 6.6x longer path at a much larger distance form the center of the earth (think of the speed of an object near the center of a merry-go-round vs. an object at the edge).

So all calculations are consistent. And none are “odd”. Phillip Stallings point is only that he does not understand the basic mathematics of circular velocities.

Phillip Stallings then goes on to point out that “The International Space Station travels at a speed of 17,500 mph which is 22 times faster than the speed of sound.”

Mr. Stallings, what is the speed of sound in a vacuum? I will tell you- 0 mph (the Space Station is not quite in a vacuum, but close). And, so what? The satellite travels fast. The space station sits at between 254 and 258 miles above the earth’s surface. Satellites closer to the earth must travel faster to keep from falling, this is just a fact. The slower geostationary satellite sits out a 22,236 miles from the surface.

Phillip then goes on to make some vague point about the temperature in the thermosphere.

“Temperatures vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as 2500 deg. C!” But had Phillip read the next sentence, or at least thought about it, he would have understood that “Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.” All the temperature is indicating is that the few atoms present at that altitude (and there are very few indeed) are moving very rapidly and with great energy. It is not analogous from a physiological perspective to what we would feel if exposed to atmospheric air at sea level with a temperature of 2500 deg. C.

He then goes on to show further lack of understanding:

“The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium.”

True, but this highly rarefied gas (near vacuum), will never raise these metals to these temperatures.

“Other than carbon, these metals are very heavy and are extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heated.”

Ok. Point? I am really curious to hear the significance of the ductility.

“Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook something efficiently, than a space capsule made out of graphite would be perfect.”

But there is not enough mass density in the thermosphere to heat it. Any heating that might occur will come from solar radiation.

“Apart from nothing working at the minimum 1112 degrees Fahrenheit (600°C) due to thermal expansion of the materials (iron glows red hot at 932 degrees Fahrenheit/500°C), some of the electronic components like lead, zinc, and epoxy resin would not just burn out, but melt.”

Other then the clumsy attempt to relate thermal expansion, color of radiating melting/burning-out, the thermosphere does not have enough thermal capacity to transmit enough heat to the graphite oven to actually heat it.

Try this experiment. Stand in still 0 deg. C air for 1 minute wearing only a bathing suit. You get cold right? But you could probably tolerate it for a minute. Now jump into 0 deg. C water for a minute. Is the sensation the same? No. Because the water has has much higher thermal capacity than the air. You could tolerate the air for a minute, but the water would be painful, because it has more thermal capacity and can suck heat out of you faster. To Phillip’s credit, this is the point he was trying to make about the thermal conductivty of the metals, but he is missing the other side of the equation (the equation that describes the heat available to be conducted). This experiment is true for heating also. Do the same experiment with 60 deg. C air and 60 deg. C water (60 deg. C = 140 deg. F). The few atoms in the thermosphere have almost no thermal capacity. Even though the few atoms can get very agitated (i.e., have high temperature), they have no capacity for heating dense materials, because there are so few atoms available to transmit their heat.




This continues. I do not have the time to answer every objection, and take every challenge Phillip Stallings presents us. Phillip Stallings is trying to argue something that he clearly does not have the aptitude for, and though he makes sweeping statements, and some people may find it convincing, it is mostly just lack of understanding of basic physics and mathematics coupled with a dynamic personality. The basic methodology is to look for big numbers (2500 deg. C, 1.91 miles per second, …) taken out of context of any meaning, then compare them to some other context which is not relevant in order to shock the reader. I suspect Mr. Stallings is not trying to be deceptive, but rather himself gets excited when he misunderstands the context of these apparently big numbers, and apparent but misconstrued contradictions.

This is typical of arguments for flat earth. If it comforts you to believe in flat earth, be my guest, but please do not claim science supports you until you can actually have at least a rudimentary understanding of the science. It is ok not to understand some topics. I would suggest that you learn the limits of what you do understand, and try not to argue beyond those limits. It is ok to ask questions, but have an open mind to the answers.




20 Responses

  1. Chayah shalom says:

    Well I don’t know who Peter Stallings is but I’m much more inclined to agree with him that there are no satellites. Rick or whoever this is Sungenis? Yow will need to make up your mind! The earth is just land. Not a conglomeration of land, sea and sky constructed in a globe. In Genesis it says that our creator divided the waters from the waters and that He created heaven and earth. If you would read your bible and investigate the actual definition you would see that earth is just the land part that we live on and things grow on. Land, plain/ plane, level. The other components are sea and sky. You could do as I have stated numerous times and look at the definition . has blue tool bars to the left that let you scroll down to each word to define it.
    Face it, if you do not humble yourself to want to learn the truth then you are just prideful and don’t think you need to learn. I’m thinking you may have Jesuit ties if you think we are a spinning globe. Geocentric would be a stationary plane.

    • Chayah, if the Earth is flat, tell us why people in Australia cannot see the North Star?

      • John says:

        For the same reason they can’t see the sun at night. The earth, sun, moon and stars are under the dome the top of which is about 12 -15 K miles high. The sun and moon are about 3K miles high and shine down on the earth. At dusk on a flat earth, the sun travels out of visible range to light up the other part of the earth. It is not visible again until morning when it “rises”. The North Star is simply too far away from Australia to be visible. Because it rotates above the N Pole, it does not have an orbit like the sun does so it is never closer and further. One thing to keep in mind is this: God didn’t make any planets, just the earth, sun, moon, and stars and they are all under the dome or firmament. So earth is not a planet and does not travel around the sun, it’s the other way around as supported by scripture.

    • Michael Vance says:

      Yes satellites exist, I’ve see them going across the sky on a clear night where I live.
      Sometimes they appear within a few minutes of their previous orbit’s on the next night. They aren’t hard to spot if you live where there isn’t a lot of night lights, usually I can spot them just by looking up.
      My guess is that what I am observing is the reflection of the sun off of the satellites, it’s pretty cool to watch. I can shoot a video of them and post it here if you want but don’t be impatient, we are expecting rain just about every day this week.
      But the next clear night I will film these satellites for you. God bless

  2. Alex says:

    Flat earth “theory” is easily debunked by flights from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile in South America where a flight takes about 13 hours. If the earth was actually flat then the flight would take about 3 days.

  3. Stuart of Maple Street says:

    You know, not one “flatster” has ever explained to me why the North Star is not visible in Australia. Why is the North Star lower on the horizon in Florida than it is in Michigan or Alaska? That’s just for starters.

    The original language of the bible, can we really understand things outside of our dimensional experience? The first verse of Genesis states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. So what does”heavens” mean? Is it like the first, second and third heavens, which I assume are some sort of other dimensions? What does it mean that God separated the light from the dark? Does it have anything to do with good and evil do you know?

    Then there’s John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and through Him all things were made”. This describes quantum mechanics doesn’t it? I’ve heard some scientists claim reality somehow has to do with vibrations, like the vibrations of the voice of God? And who is the Observer of the observer effect other than the Almighty, or Jesus that Hebrews says holds everything together. But can we even begin to grasp what this is in our limited state of being?

    I ask any of you flatsters, is it possible that the dome and all that relates to some other dimensional reality in God’s creation? Or are we just not understanding what the language means? If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then its a duck I say. And if the North Star is not visible in Australia, and varies where it is seen in the horizon by what latitude your are at using a globe model, then the earth is a sphere.

    The flat earth is a distraction from the most important point that The Principal teaches us: THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! That means there is a Creator. Period. The apostle Paul said no one is without excuse, and the wages of sin is death. We are all sinners, but fortunately Jesus died for our sins so that we can have eternal life. Repent, and believe in the one God sent us, Jesus of Nazareth.

    • Staurt, it’s gotten to the point that if a Flat Earther refuses to explain why those in Australia cannot see the North Star, then we simply refuse to discuss the issue any longer. This is the Pink Elephant in the room, and the Flat Earthers sure do a good job of avoiding it! Here’s a joke for you: John: “How big is the Flat Earth Society?” Joe: “We have members all over the world. We’ve gone global!”

      • Ben C says:

        It’s explained by the laws of perspective, in particular convergence and vanishing point. Now kindly explain how the water adheres to a ball earth and provide a precedent (eg an experiment) for curving of water across large expanses.

        Thanking you in advance.

  4. Mike Blackbird says:

    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.

    And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    And God said, Let there be lights “IN” the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    And the evening and the morning were the→ fourth day.

    The Sun, Moon, Stars, were not even there until the 4th day.

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth

    Luke 12:2

    “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.”

  5. BenC says:

    Hi Robert et al, just bought a bunch of Principle DVDs, good job btw.

    There’s a lot of “so there” talk about “why can’t we see the North Star on the FE model”. I must say, I like a lot of things about the FE model, perhaps only because I’m a contrarian Christian conspiracitard with a case of confirmation bias. The answer to that question can be no weaker than the answer to how the water doesn’t fall off the earth in globe earth models. Helio modellers say “gravity pulls it”, Geo guys say “gravity pushes it”, so in the same wacky vein an FE guy might conjecture the north star is obscured by “sunzwool”, a theoretical phenomenon that has something to do with laws of optics and perspective. (The truth is, we don’t know, but it’s better than inventing shibboleths.) What’s the difference, in principle?

  6. John T. Banewicz says:

    “the few atoms present at that altitude [vacuum near 0 Kelvin] (and there are very few indeed) are moving very rapidly and with great energy.”

    In school we were taught that at 0 Kelvin motion ceases and matter becomes undetectable, or void. Bose-Einstein condensate experiment confirmed that matter looses its form near 0 Kelvin.

    Wondered at an article that claims vultures can reach an altitude of 75,000 feet. How do they breath and withstand the cold? On a commercial flight the temp displayed at 35,000 feet was 70 degrees below zero. Still, how do they breath?”

    Cosmos without Gravitation” by Emanuel Velikovsky presented some questions such as: water is 800 times heavier that air. What are clouds doing up there? Ozone is also heavier than air. Rocks are denser than water, yet you weight more on water?

    The invisible things of this world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made. Can we duplicate in a lab a ball shaped object with an equal layer of water surrounding it?

    I don’t expect answers. Just some things I have been wondering about.

  7. Ben C says:

    I’m guessing my last comment slipped through the cracks, because I have faith you guys wouldn’t censor your customers, particularly not in this little corner.

    I was asking whether the answer to the riddle of why Polaris can’t be seen from southern latitudes on the FE model could be answered by an ad hoc hypothesis. More importantly, are you able to confirm whether you consider that gravity (whether big or small G) is itself really just a big ad hoc for RE (geo and helio) models?

    It seems to me that the competition between models is in its current state of development a battle over who is the least flawed. Second prize onlies!

    Thanks, Ben

  8. Ben C says:


  9. John says:

    God “spread out the earth upon the water” Psalm 136:4 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalm 104:5 The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; Psalm 96:10 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. 1 Chronicles 16:30 ..the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. psalm 93:1 God did not make a globe and stick it under the firmament (dome). He set the earth on pillars. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. 1 Samuel 2:8 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalm 104:5 From all these scriptures we see that the earth is stationary, fixed on pillars and foundations, and was “spread out over the waters”. This simply cannot be a globe or we would find the pillars or foundations. If the earth does not move then it does not spin, rotate on it’s axis, or travel around the sun. Furthermore, if you still think we live on a globe earth, then go ahead and build a working model of it. It would be easy enough to take a partially deflated soccer ball and make indentations for where the oceans go and raised areas for the land, but then: HOW WOULD YOU PUT THE WATER ON IT??? When it’s stationary or spinning??? To build a working model of a stationary flat earth would be very simple. It is very easy to prove that we don’t live on a round spinning ball. Many of the arguments are on my website if you wish to read them and if you comment I would appreciate hearing it. BTW….you did a great job on the Principle. It opened a few eyes that’s for sure.

  10. Mateusz says: this is experiment – heat transfer in vacuum.

  11. Max Erickson says:

    Flat earthers seem to have either zero knowledge of basic geometry, or a seditious incorrigibility towards the notion that the Earth is a Sphere/Spheroid. Whichever the case, if it weren’t for men like Eric Dubay(who has said he knows Christ never existed by the way) who teach in a well spoken monotone voice that the earth is flat. Nearly all of his arguments were debunked ages ago, but because his followers are unlearned and easily manipulated they fall for his lies.

    It seems to me that the Flat Earth Society is part of a larger conspiracy to hide/discredit Geocentrism. Because certain powerful men want the public to view Geocentrism as a joke, they hope that the public will view the Flat Earth Society(funded by the elite) the same way in which they view Geocentrists. The sad part is that regardless of a potential conspiracy, the public mostly views Geocentrism as they view the notion that Earth is flat.

Leave a Reply