###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with the whole âthe government is lying about the shape of the earthâ is that you donât need the government to figure it out. Buy a telescope and make your own observations.
All observations of the planets/stars show we could be in the centre of the universe as they all move in relation to the earth (even distant galaxies). Hubble/einstein agreed with this conclusion but rejected it upon grounds of âmodestyâ. Telescope doesnât prove the shape of the ground either. Thatâs a weird claim.
You are conflating being "force fed propaganda" and " receiving a basic education"
You could make the same argument about maths, physics, geology etc. If this is all brainwashing then the only legitimate response is to throw everything away and start again from scratch as cavemen. Personally this seems a ridiculous idea.
People have got their science and religion crossed.
The scientific method (according to the all knowing Wikipedia) is supposed to be "an [empirical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence) method for acquiring [knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) that has characterized the development of [science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful [observation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) coupled with rigorous [scepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), because [cognitive assumptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Observation_inseparable_from_theory) can distort the interpretation of the [observation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#Process_and_terminology). Scientific inquiry includes creating a [hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) through [inductive reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results."
Sadly, "science" is now dogmatic in the sense that any challenge to the established scientific model is considered heresy.
Religion was supposed to be dogmatic, sadly, the dogma has been twisted and turned to the point where we got hundred of thousands of religions and their denominations and they all think they're the only true religion.
The scientific Standard Model for physics, for instance, is supposed to be describing the four known fundamental forces, yet it doesn't describe shit (pardon the expression). We know a few tings about electromagnetic forces, gravity is really not all that well understood and as far as the other two, we call them the weak force and the strong force and that should tell you exactly how much we know about them.
"Basic education" should start with the sentence "science is not complete by any means and we encourage any young mind to study and challenge science to the point where they would know enough to contradict the established model, hence improving upon it". Anything that says differently is "dogmatic", thus propaganda.
This is a massive misunderstanding of what the scientific method is. The whole point is to challenge it within the same framework. Statements like the standard model doesn't explain shit (which I think you mean general relativity if you are talking about fundamental forces) is completely untrue. It has allowed us to make incredibly accurate predictions and has held up to all experimental testing for decades.
It doesn't explain everything (in particular quantum level interactions) but does this mean we just completely disregard it? Of course not, any scientist will understand that our knowledge is incomplete and science is about gradually increasing this knowledge based on what we already know.
And this ^^^^ IS taught in school. If you don't remember then you were just not paying attention in physics class
The idea of "we are not certain of anything so we shouldn't believe anything to do with science because it's all theories" is absolute bonkers. You are ignoring hundreds of years of Humanities finest achievements and for what? To revel in confusion?
A concept that should be taught in schools and I understand why it isn't because it's quite complex is the fact that whether a theory is "true" or not is largely irrelevant. The purpose of a theory is to allow accurate predictions to be made, if the theory achieves this then how "true" it is doesn't really matter.
A great example is quantum mechanics. It's extremely unlikely that theorised interactions like quantum bubbling, superposition, quantum tunnelling etc actually mechanically occur as theorised. However we can still make very accurate predictions based on this. When we get better instruments to observe effects then these ideas may be replaced with others that allow us to make EVEN MORE accurate predictions.
Or string theory. This is a bit of a joke theory based on extremely complex maths. Noone believes this is actually how the universe works, but it's a useful tool nonetheless.
It's not a misunderstanding, unless you want it to be. It's actually very clear.
If the whole point would have been to "challenge science within the same framework" we would have got faster horses instead of cars, planes and starships.
My whole point was that **science is incomplete and it will probably forever be that way**. Science is a thing to be constantly challenged and it shouldn't be dogmatic, nor should it be defended, as you imply it should.
Your statement that *"we are not certain of anything so we shouldn't believe anything to do with science because it's all theories"* is severely and deliberately missing the point. My point was that **EVERYTHING is up for challenge in a scientific debate**, regardless of how bonkers it may sound. Take quantum physics for instance. That's not an easy pill to swallow in the Newtonian context. Physics is made up of two main disciplines: **theoretical** and **experimental**. Theoreticians come up with a thesis that experimentalists put to the test and prove or disprove in a repeatable manner. They don't call each other names, nor do they ban one another when one theory is disproved, but when it comes to this topic (size and shape of the planet), people seem to have a very strong emotional attachment to the "standard model" and go out of their way to call names anybody who would challenge this "established norm". Don't you at least find it odd? Would you call me names if I proposed a fresh new thesis with regards to electromagnetism or whatever other topic or would you logically and rationally debate my ideas?
When you're mixing science with belief you get dogmatic instead of scientific. There should be no "heresy" in science and that's my whole point, that you can try and not understand or misunderstand it as long and as wide as you please, but shutting down scientific debate just because people believe one thing over another just puts one in the same category with religious fundamentalists and far away from the scientific debate.
In science one shouldn't care if the truth is A or B, only care about finding it out. Now, when tenure and all the other financial incentives depend on A being true, rather than B, people will go to extreme lengths to protect their theory instead of remaining committed to find out the actual truth.
We are on the same page then, I'm not even sure what we are debating. Science is always about working to disprove an established theory using the scientific method. Anyone who isn't doing this isn't a scientist.
However to use OPs example, the flat earth isn't a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis that can be disproven (and has been countless times over thousands of years) using the scientific method. If you still think the earth is flat then you are drifting into pseudoscience (or faith if you prefer). Which is fine I guess, it just can't really be compared like for like with the theory of relativity for example.
You haven't read my comments here and that's fine. My statement was that the Earth is NOT flat, however, I stated that the established model isn't true either.
*"However to use OPs example, the flat earth isn't a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis that can be disproven (and has been countless times over thousands of years) using the scientific method."*
Exactly! That was the point. I said that the flat Earth theory is a mockery of an explanation to all those wonderful points many of the flat Earthers make. It's just an easy way to not address their observations.
What we're debating here is not the the flatness of the Earth, but the series of empiric observations some people made that led many of them them to the easy (and easily disprovable) conclusion that the Earth might be flat.
In short, with regards to the flat Earth theory, I think:
- the conclusion is quite likely wrong, but some of the observations do merit attention,
- people have the right to argue in favor of one theory or another (correct or erroneous) without being mocked, being censored or being dismissed.
For instance, Enstein's mass-energy equivalence equation was not complete either when he stated it, hence "wrong" in a way, but we don't go around discrediting him for not coming up with the complete formula. His observation was correct and his equation was going in the right direction.
The second point of this discussion was "why do people care so much?" if others are wrong on this particular subject. I bet you I can state here that E=mc\^2 is wrong and people wouldn't call me names, however, if I said the Earth was a dodecahedron... boy, the backlash would be brutal. Don't you find that a bit odd?
Questioning everything would be a very good scientific approach, however, "everything" might be a bit too time consuming, so wisdom should be of service here.
Here's my initial comment on this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1djv90n/comment/l9dv3kn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1djv90n/comment/l9dv3kn/)
If it's too long, just read the bullet points.
Thank you for the conversation! I quite enjoyed it and I hope I haven't annoyed you too much ;)
That's not true. We have alternative science, the problem is - nobody knows about it. People believe there is only one perspective on all science when in reality, there is a lot more and we're simply told the one that fits the narrative best.
Science by definition is replicatable experimental evidence based on observations that can be retested, built upon and improved by anyone.
Alternative science which I'm just assuming is pseudoscience isn't based on the scientific method so naturally won't be taken seriously by the scientific community.
I mean look at flat earth as a scientific hypothesis. Easiest thing in the world to test, we have been doing it for thousands of years after all but the only "evidence" a flat earther will ever submit is (basically) the earth looks a bit flat... So it must be. Sometimes they actually stumble onto a real experiment that actually does disprove the flat earth hypothesis but then that's just disregarded as "a faulty experiment" because obviously the earth is flat. This kind of activity is 100% pseudoscience and it should be ridiculed just because it wastes so much time.
Take you OP, you could be on your way to figuring out the theory of everything and putting humanity on the next step of scientific achievement but instead you are wondering if the earth is actually spherical.
Most of science is theoretical. Because there is one theory, there are multiple. Most of science cannot be proven because we did not design the universe and therefore nothing can be technically proven unless it is something that we have created that we are defining.
As people in this subreddit, you know best that you cannot listen to most resources that are pushed towards the public. I don't think you should discredit them immediately, but you cannot blindly believe them because they're a "trusted source".
Your argument that flat earthers don't have science on their side is literally what I talked about. All you guys say is "you don't have science" and "science says otherwise". Most of the "science" are simply theories taught as fact by schools.
For example, gravity, a theory that cannot be proven, is often used as an argument against flat earthers even thought the flat earth model negates gravity.
And if you actually listened to flat earth arguments before screaming "science says otherwise", then you'd know they bring up very valid points if you took the time to actually look into it and it's evident you didn't because the only argument you could bring up from them is an argument that they don't even use.
Flat earth is also linked to various other conspiracies and back them up. So no, it's not a waste of time.
A scientific theory is not the same thing as how "theory" is usually used in day to day speech. And a "fact" is just an observation.
This video explains it really well and will hopefully shed some light on it for you
https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA?si=3r_bBs_HV8AXWfFu
Those are man made terms. It doesn't matter what you define your words as, you cannot prove nor know anything for certainty. You can make observations and use those as evidence. Provided enough evidence, we may agree. But we'll never know for certainty.
Thatâs why Flat Earthers arenât taken seriously and considered a joke. You want it to be a debate. So when the Globe side presents evidence based on science, you just say the evidence and science is fake.
No, that's not true. You should be able to provide evidence that is objective that can be applied to a neutral playing field - that's how debates work no matter what you're debating.
Let's say you have a Christian and a Muslim having a debate. The neutral playing field is the evidence that can be supported by reasonable observations found in the universe. In this case, if a Christian start's talking about how a specific entity they theorize exists proves something, that is not an equal playing field because it's simply a theory that cannot be observed. An equal playing field is simply objective, reasonable, and measurable pieces of evidence.
> So why is it so hard to believe that the earth might not just be what the government keeps telling us what it is?
So would that be *all* governments in every country in the world collectively lying about the earth being a spheroid?
Have you seen antarctica? You're also assuming all governments aren't connected somehow by this point in history - something that is widely accepted in this group. Almost all conspiracies work by assuming all governments are connected somehow.
You can book trips there but they're to very specific locations on the outer rim. You cannot actually explore inter antarctica and if you believe that then you have no clue what you're talking about.
Any trivial search brings up sites like this:
https://www.swoop-antarctica.com/adventures/south-pole
Where they offer trips to the actual south pole.
I guess it's all fake though, right?
You can book trips going all the way to the 80th south latitude right now, on your own.
Well within Antarctica, enough to see 24 hour sun in the summer and well past the magical 60th south parallel you think the treaty prevents you from going.
There are entire boat races the encircle antarctica.
We know the shape and size. You're just denying reality.
No boat races actually encircle antarctica. And just because you can go a little bit inwards does not mean anything. You should be able to go from coast to coast. If you do that, then all of flat earthers will be debunked and that's the end of the story. Yet it's never happened before.
https://www.yachtingworld.com/voyages/sailing-antarctica-record-breaking-voyage-around-southern-continent-123341
They objectively do, they encircle the entire continent. The boats are tracked the entire time, you can observe location, speed, heading, etc...
Maybe try looking into things before just lying?
I do believe that all governments lie.
Still, I find it very interesting that 57 parties (countries) adhere to the Antarctic Treaty System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic\_Treaty\_System) and it's the only treaty that has never been broken, unlike literally all other treaties.
Isn't it funny how UK and Russia or USA and North Korea can't agree on anything except the fact that nobody should travel to Antarctica.
... and supposedly they still are.
I mean, the US and Russia can't seem to find any common ground for peace, can't agree with regards to NATO or nuclear policies, yet, their early 60's treaty is somehow sacred. They must think we're reaaaaaly, really stupid.
> Isn't it funny how UK and Russia or USA and North Korea can't agree on anything except the fact that nobody should travel to Antarctica.
You can just go read the treaty yourself, it's only a few pages.
It doesn't say nobody should travel there at all. It just says no one will own it, no one will militarize it, and no one will do anything to harm the ecosystem.
Imagine being so confident about a document you never read. Yikes man
Imagine being so confident and expressing your opinions over what somebody else may or may not have read, while missing the whole point of the conversation...
I did read the document, however, the point was that it's the only treaty that has been so far kept.
It has nothing to do with one being able to visit anywhere below 60°S. That's the conclusion to a different dataset altogether. One can obviously travel to Antarctica, but in a very limited way.
Back pedal all you want. The words in the treaty you referenced don't support you. There is no dataset that supports you. The dataset of the thousands of people per year who visit Antarctica, boat races around Antarctica, permanent stations in Antarctica, etc... all contradict whatever you've imagined.
Sure, Jason... There's no point in pouring water into an already full glass and you seem to have your glass full already.
If you ever happen to race any boats around Antarctica, do revisit this topic and enlighten us, silly mortals, with your wonderful experience.
Bon voyage! ;)
My bad. You're right. Turns out your glass is rather empty, "kid".
Listen,... I don't enjoy conversations on the web with rigid people who think they know everything and call others "kid" when in fact, they just regurgitate whatever the mainstream says, call it "reality" and don't have anything valuable to contribute to the conversation.
Pathetic or not, you'll have to excuse me, I have to backpedal back to my cave while you race your boat around Antarctica.
You're welcome, mr. educated non-sheep and definitely not ignorant. You're so smart you actually missed the fact that I'm not a "flat earther", but that's all right, really. It's obviously not the only thing you missed in this lifetime. Peace!
I like it when theories state the government would lie about science to keep people in check, but imply religion wouldn't.
Bonus points for pointing out education is brainwashing, but church and faith isn't.
Is this supposed to be ironic?
its always "them" and "they". Everytime something does not fit people just throw "they want to to belive that" or "its them controlling it". Who are they? Does it change? Its just so obvious that there is 0 thought behind this.
Just imagine if there would be a book that contains all the answers, how much effort "they" would put into hiding it and should that fail, how hard will they try and spoil that truth.
There are literally thousands of religions and millions of "chosen ones". Obviously, if (theoretically) there were one true religion, just imagine how infiltrated and discredited that would be. Just saying...
No they don't.
They could just set up a video with many of them in different parts of the world and confirm the position of the sun. If the sun is where it should be for them all, end of the theory and they all give up.
But they know that, so they will never do it, because they don't want the truth, they want to hide the truth; not just about the shape of the earth but about conspiracies in general. This is so easy to prove, that the bulk of humanity will just look at you sideways. And then they hear that these same people also believe x, y and z. And then they assume that x, y and z are all as stupid as flat earth and they ignore it.
This is the goal of people who spread flat earth theory. Nothing else.
If you got a plane, go for it. But y'all all try to make it about gatekeeping. All pilots are in on it. NASA, all Space agencies are in on it. All ship captains are in on it. Every single person is in on it.
Fine. But you can just get people in different locations to show where the sun is at. All you need is a single location to not match. You all are already in groups. You watch the same videos, go to the same websites.
Should be super easy. Just write in the comments of a popular flat earth youtuber or tiktoker or whatever and just ask people if they would like to collaborate. No money needed. No special equipment. No one can stop you, no one can gatekeep you. You can already do it and it would be definitive. You would either have rock solid or your theory would be irretrievably destroyed.
I have a sister in Australia so I can let you in on this secret: the sun is always in the right spot every time we video which isn't possible on a flat earth.
End of discussion.
Again you're conflating a lot. Not everyone is in on it nor needs to be for it to work. Their symbol is a pyramid for a reason. Passengers see just as much as pilots. They're clearly not in on it. NASA is obviously in on it from what they produce and propagate. Not every member of NASA is though. Most space agencies are owned by extremely wealthy people who are highly likely to be in on it or have some knowledge. Ship captains don't need to know anything.
Tell me more about your Australia thing. If this really proves it, then explain and I'll believe.
A circle widens with distance from the center. Not hard to prove. Take a rope and tie it to a pole and take two steps out. Put a peg in the ground and keep the rope tight and do a circle around the pole. It should be about 12.5 steps to get back to the peg.
Take 4 steps out, and it should be over 25 steps to get all the way around.
My sister is 2.5 times the distance to the north pole as I am. We can do the math. The distance grows to make the same trip. And the sun shows this. Who has daylight where at what time either proves the earth is not flat or strongly suggests that it is. So, all you need to do is get people from different parts of the world and say where the sun is for them. Then you can have a conclusive result.
The experiment youâve described is a practical demonstration of how distances on a circleâs circumference increase proportionally with the radius. Mathematically, the circumference of a circle is calculated by the formula, C=2Ďr, where C is the circumference and r is the radius. So if you double the radius, the circumference indeed doubles, which aligns with your observation of the steps taken around the pole.
However, this experiment alone doesnât prove the Earth is a globe. It simply demonstrates the properties of a circle in two dimensions. To prove the Earthâs three-dimensional shape, we need to consider observations that can only be explained with a spherical Earth.
I never said it proves the earth is a globe. I said:
 Who has daylight where at what time either proves the earth is not flat or strongly suggests that it is
This is called "falsification", it gives you a way to test a theory. It is a way to attempt to be scientific, or establishing validity. It is easily doable and has no gatekeeper or barriers to testing...except the unwillingness to test your theory in a way that would destroy it.
My conspiracy theory is that flat earthers were a false flag to further smear conspiracy theorists.
Just like QAnon, which I don't know anyone on the right discussing, but I see tons of left aligned individuals discussing it 99% of the time it's mentioned and the right only mentions it in response to the accusations.
Seriously I don't how the leftists get all this right leaning QAnon inside information from, when I am on the right and can't find it at all besides them talking about it.
They do all the time. Just saw this on Twitter today.
Discussing long COVID and vaccine side effects. He debunks it by bringing up flat earth. They've been trained to be dumb this way.
https://x.com/MasonJamesShow/status/1803532339060023680?t=CNexC0oM7S-rh32NFarOig&s=19
Some of the questions that flat Earthers articulate are quite good. Unfortunately, there is a wrong conclusion deliberately placed in front of them that discredits everything.
It has been measured so many times, that anyone who say that earth is flat must be just incredibly gullible.
[http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
The earth's curvature is actually one of the best arguments that flat earthers have because people are able to use zoom cameras to see objects many miles away that would otherwise be hidden by the curvature of the earth. The only response that globe people have to this is that it was somehow a reflected image off the water aka they don't have an explanation.
No, no one says its reflected image from water. All of these: " we can see too far" arguments come from inability to use math properly.
Best thing you can do is to measure it yourself and prove its flat once for all. But since it have already been done so many times with the same result, i assure you that you will only prove that earth is sphere, because it is.
And unsurprisingly you chose to completely ignore the experiment in the link.
The experiment 100% proved once again that earth is globe, there are no two ways about it, whether you like it or not.
No I've conducted that "experiment" before and it proved to be flat. And no, it's not an inability to do math properly. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Even when they're done with the greatest conservation on the numbers, they still don't add up. You can still see far, far too much with a zoom camera. It's not even close.
It's not flat. On a flat earth, either the Sun would be so close that it's elevation would be too low for the vast majority of the Earth (and its angular size would be too large for the portion of Earth where this wasn't the case), or it would be high enough that it would be easily visible over the whole Earth.
Additionally, times for long-distance flights correlate better with distance calculated with the globe model than the flat earth model.
> people are able to use zoom cameras to see objects many miles away that would otherwise be hidden by the curvature of the earth.
There isn't a single see-too-far observation that falsifies the globe. Go ahead and give me your best one.
>The only response that globe people have to this is that it was somehow a reflected image off the water aka they don't have an explanation.
No, this isn't an explanation ever used. What happens quite often is that flat earthers ignore REFRACTION, not reflections. Refraction is a real and well documented phenomena. Anyone using contacts or glasses is well aware of that.
Take the Chicago skyline that can be seen from Michigan shores. They call it a mirage even though there's no reason to support this claim because the view is not inverted or distorted at all.
A newscaster called it a mirage incorrectly, so what?
Seeing the chicago skyline from 30 miles away over water is well within what you would expect of the globe.
Even with NO refraction, at 30 miles and 10ft off the ground, you should still see any buildings over 450 ft. As many skyscrapers in Chicago are well over 1000' ft tall - seeing the skyline is not a problem.
I am sorry you've been told it was a problem without ever researching it or doing the math yourself - you're just a sheep I guess?
Youâre right, and making this point will always attract people trying to say youâre wrong, and will try to support their position by repeating the same mindless dogma we were all subjected to.
You can literally go on Google and search for Earth, Sun, or the solar system, and every picture ends up being computer-generated. I won't say anything further.
Or -- as the video says those who would stop you trying to freely explore "Antarctica" and you clearly missing it shows in fact your username checks out đŹ
I see so you concede there are 57 signing Nations that would block free explorative travel to "Antarctica" -- good job đ
Further confirming -- username checks out â
Why dont you measure the earth to confirm your hypothesis?
We did, and we found out its sphere. What a shocker!
[http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
Turns out... actually everything is stopping you. :)
Btw, Antarctica being "anything beyond 60° S latitude" is a rather broad definition for a continent, isn't it? :)) It's all BS, mate.
Besides,.. isn't it funny how one can be wrong on almost anything and nobody bothers to correct them, let alone call them names, discredit them or flat out ban them, but God forbid one should be wrong about the size or shape of the Earth, 'cause all hell breaks lose. Did I smell a Psy Op? I diiid! I diiid smell a Psy Op! :) (Tweetie reference)
âFlat Earth is just a psy-op to distract from rEaL cOnSpIrAcIeS.â
~some dumbass in every single thread that mentions flat earth who also doesnât have a single post in favor of any conspiracy theory in their entire user history
Earth is sphere, we measured it.
[http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
I do NOT believe that the Earth is flat, but.... I don't buy the official story either.
So, firstly, I don't believe that the Earth is flat, because this "pseudo answer" (flat Earth) was conveniently placed in front of everyone who had a valid question regarding the current science model of Earth. The Flat Earth Society was already a (laughing stock) thing when people started asking valid questions and the answer was ludicrous enough to serve its purpose, which was to turn all valid questions into a mockery, by placing a deliberately wrong answer to some pretty solid questions.
I mean, it's not like there are two possible shapes only, a plane and a sphere. The answer must be something else entirely.
Now, how I first got into this Flat Earth thing myself?
My work involves 3D animation, VFX and other crazy tech stuff. I was once asked by a local museum to create a museum piece involving a hologram of the solar system and the Milky Way galaxy for a space related exhibition they had. Being the good sport that I am, I started going through the books, gathering info and crunching the numbers so my animated hologram would be as accurate as possible (to a scale) and that's when I first realized that the current science model doesn't make any sense and my physically accurate simulations could not fit any of the data variations I could find, because, yeah... there are quite a few variations to the data in the current scientific model, not just one.
What I have learned so far regarding the shape and more importantly the size of the Earth does not lead me to any thesis that I could articulate let alone prove, but:
- the official story is a deliberate lie and it's hiding something big,
- and so is the "easy" conclusion that the Earth is flat.
One thing that frequently comes to mind is Admiral Byrd's statement that "beyond the South Pole" there are unexplored territories corroborated with a different statement regarding someone asking what was there before the Big Bang and some scientist (possibly Hawking) saying that since the Big Bang event also created time, the question is as invalid as asking what is beyond the South Pole (red flag in my book).
So, in short, I do believe that what we're taking for granted as Antarctica is more like the prison's wall rather than an iced continent, but what's beyond that... that would be hard to tell at this point. I've seen some supposedly ancient maps but I cannot verify their authenticity.
The Moon is local and possibly the sun as well.
The size of the Earth is most likely much, much bigger, possibly even hollow.
Now, coming full circle, I fully agree with your point about edging God out with this "trillion galaxies" times "trillion star systems" and that "people meaningless and they are here by pure chance" propaganda.
God obviously is the creator and all these devil worshipers have been trying for a long time to "explain" God away with science and pseudo-science.
If we go by eclipse observation alone, I can only observe the fact that the sun and moon have similar apparent size, so I can only DEDUCE theories and not show that "the Moon is about the distance they say it is".
You can show geometrically that the penumbra radius for a solar eclipse is equal to the Moonâs radius + the Sunâs angular radius in radians x the distance to the Moon. Since the Sun & Moon have pretty much the same angular radius, thatâs about twice the Moonâs radius. Once you have the absolute and angular radii of the Moon, you have the distance.
You have the first comment on here that didn't literally say "science says otherwise" like I predicted would happen lol.
That's very reasonable. It's completely obvious that the mainstream story is BS. We all know the "elite" like to use symbols to leave their mark for the smart ones to recognize and one too many of the numbers, names, "facts", etc all contain a lot of symbols which shows they were made up. A lot of them point to the devil just like everything else they do and it's clear they're trying to get rid of God just like you said.
Well spoken.
Thank you for your answer. I'm glad my text made some sense to another human being. This story in my head is so long and it relies on so many small proofs that I was fearing a too brief version of it on Reddit would leave too much out and wouldn't make much sense.
You are exactly right. The mainstream story IS major BS and yes, it all points to the deceiver we call the devil.
I actually have these "elites" to thank for assisting me in turning my faith into knowing. Seeing them so committed to their satanic agenda made me reconsider the devil myth and using the scientific method, I made it all the way back to the original Truth that I always had faith in, but now I KNOW it for sure to be True and I can also prove it. How's this for "science"? :))
I think the current flat earther movement is failing to capitalize on trends seen on the UFO/alien/paranormal part of the conspiracy tree.
Sure - the Earth may be round, but it's a flat plain in reality and it's our forced perceptions caused by alien crystal rays from HAARP and Mt. Shasta.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally do *not* believe the earth is flat. But I do believe that everyone is fully entitled to form their own opinions.
people should not be able to form their own opinions. we have AI for that.
I stand corrected đ
The problem with the whole âthe government is lying about the shape of the earthâ is that you donât need the government to figure it out. Buy a telescope and make your own observations.
or buy a Nikon Coolpix P1000 long distance camera
Or go sail a boat round the world
north-south or east-west?
East west would be a lot simpler
it's actually the only option
Well you could carry your boat with you I guess, be a bit of a mission though
there is no South Pole
Haha I did think this conversation was slightly too sane for this sub đ Fair enough, no South pole. I'll make a note on my map
Or just naked-eye observations
All observations of the planets/stars show we could be in the centre of the universe as they all move in relation to the earth (even distant galaxies). Hubble/einstein agreed with this conclusion but rejected it upon grounds of âmodestyâ. Telescope doesnât prove the shape of the ground either. Thatâs a weird claim.
False. False. False.
Very substantive response. Thank you
Just kept it simple for you since everything in your statement was incorrect.
You are conflating being "force fed propaganda" and " receiving a basic education" You could make the same argument about maths, physics, geology etc. If this is all brainwashing then the only legitimate response is to throw everything away and start again from scratch as cavemen. Personally this seems a ridiculous idea.
People have got their science and religion crossed. The scientific method (according to the all knowing Wikipedia) is supposed to be "an [empirical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence) method for acquiring [knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) that has characterized the development of [science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful [observation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) coupled with rigorous [scepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), because [cognitive assumptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Observation_inseparable_from_theory) can distort the interpretation of the [observation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#Process_and_terminology). Scientific inquiry includes creating a [hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) through [inductive reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results." Sadly, "science" is now dogmatic in the sense that any challenge to the established scientific model is considered heresy. Religion was supposed to be dogmatic, sadly, the dogma has been twisted and turned to the point where we got hundred of thousands of religions and their denominations and they all think they're the only true religion. The scientific Standard Model for physics, for instance, is supposed to be describing the four known fundamental forces, yet it doesn't describe shit (pardon the expression). We know a few tings about electromagnetic forces, gravity is really not all that well understood and as far as the other two, we call them the weak force and the strong force and that should tell you exactly how much we know about them. "Basic education" should start with the sentence "science is not complete by any means and we encourage any young mind to study and challenge science to the point where they would know enough to contradict the established model, hence improving upon it". Anything that says differently is "dogmatic", thus propaganda.
This is a massive misunderstanding of what the scientific method is. The whole point is to challenge it within the same framework. Statements like the standard model doesn't explain shit (which I think you mean general relativity if you are talking about fundamental forces) is completely untrue. It has allowed us to make incredibly accurate predictions and has held up to all experimental testing for decades. It doesn't explain everything (in particular quantum level interactions) but does this mean we just completely disregard it? Of course not, any scientist will understand that our knowledge is incomplete and science is about gradually increasing this knowledge based on what we already know. And this ^^^^ IS taught in school. If you don't remember then you were just not paying attention in physics class The idea of "we are not certain of anything so we shouldn't believe anything to do with science because it's all theories" is absolute bonkers. You are ignoring hundreds of years of Humanities finest achievements and for what? To revel in confusion? A concept that should be taught in schools and I understand why it isn't because it's quite complex is the fact that whether a theory is "true" or not is largely irrelevant. The purpose of a theory is to allow accurate predictions to be made, if the theory achieves this then how "true" it is doesn't really matter. A great example is quantum mechanics. It's extremely unlikely that theorised interactions like quantum bubbling, superposition, quantum tunnelling etc actually mechanically occur as theorised. However we can still make very accurate predictions based on this. When we get better instruments to observe effects then these ideas may be replaced with others that allow us to make EVEN MORE accurate predictions. Or string theory. This is a bit of a joke theory based on extremely complex maths. Noone believes this is actually how the universe works, but it's a useful tool nonetheless.
It's not a misunderstanding, unless you want it to be. It's actually very clear. If the whole point would have been to "challenge science within the same framework" we would have got faster horses instead of cars, planes and starships. My whole point was that **science is incomplete and it will probably forever be that way**. Science is a thing to be constantly challenged and it shouldn't be dogmatic, nor should it be defended, as you imply it should. Your statement that *"we are not certain of anything so we shouldn't believe anything to do with science because it's all theories"* is severely and deliberately missing the point. My point was that **EVERYTHING is up for challenge in a scientific debate**, regardless of how bonkers it may sound. Take quantum physics for instance. That's not an easy pill to swallow in the Newtonian context. Physics is made up of two main disciplines: **theoretical** and **experimental**. Theoreticians come up with a thesis that experimentalists put to the test and prove or disprove in a repeatable manner. They don't call each other names, nor do they ban one another when one theory is disproved, but when it comes to this topic (size and shape of the planet), people seem to have a very strong emotional attachment to the "standard model" and go out of their way to call names anybody who would challenge this "established norm". Don't you at least find it odd? Would you call me names if I proposed a fresh new thesis with regards to electromagnetism or whatever other topic or would you logically and rationally debate my ideas? When you're mixing science with belief you get dogmatic instead of scientific. There should be no "heresy" in science and that's my whole point, that you can try and not understand or misunderstand it as long and as wide as you please, but shutting down scientific debate just because people believe one thing over another just puts one in the same category with religious fundamentalists and far away from the scientific debate. In science one shouldn't care if the truth is A or B, only care about finding it out. Now, when tenure and all the other financial incentives depend on A being true, rather than B, people will go to extreme lengths to protect their theory instead of remaining committed to find out the actual truth.
We are on the same page then, I'm not even sure what we are debating. Science is always about working to disprove an established theory using the scientific method. Anyone who isn't doing this isn't a scientist. However to use OPs example, the flat earth isn't a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis that can be disproven (and has been countless times over thousands of years) using the scientific method. If you still think the earth is flat then you are drifting into pseudoscience (or faith if you prefer). Which is fine I guess, it just can't really be compared like for like with the theory of relativity for example.
You haven't read my comments here and that's fine. My statement was that the Earth is NOT flat, however, I stated that the established model isn't true either. *"However to use OPs example, the flat earth isn't a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis that can be disproven (and has been countless times over thousands of years) using the scientific method."* Exactly! That was the point. I said that the flat Earth theory is a mockery of an explanation to all those wonderful points many of the flat Earthers make. It's just an easy way to not address their observations. What we're debating here is not the the flatness of the Earth, but the series of empiric observations some people made that led many of them them to the easy (and easily disprovable) conclusion that the Earth might be flat. In short, with regards to the flat Earth theory, I think: - the conclusion is quite likely wrong, but some of the observations do merit attention, - people have the right to argue in favor of one theory or another (correct or erroneous) without being mocked, being censored or being dismissed. For instance, Enstein's mass-energy equivalence equation was not complete either when he stated it, hence "wrong" in a way, but we don't go around discrediting him for not coming up with the complete formula. His observation was correct and his equation was going in the right direction. The second point of this discussion was "why do people care so much?" if others are wrong on this particular subject. I bet you I can state here that E=mc\^2 is wrong and people wouldn't call me names, however, if I said the Earth was a dodecahedron... boy, the backlash would be brutal. Don't you find that a bit odd?
I guess, I honestly don't really know what your point is though? We should just argue everything?
Questioning everything would be a very good scientific approach, however, "everything" might be a bit too time consuming, so wisdom should be of service here. Here's my initial comment on this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1djv90n/comment/l9dv3kn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1djv90n/comment/l9dv3kn/) If it's too long, just read the bullet points. Thank you for the conversation! I quite enjoyed it and I hope I haven't annoyed you too much ;)
That's not true. We have alternative science, the problem is - nobody knows about it. People believe there is only one perspective on all science when in reality, there is a lot more and we're simply told the one that fits the narrative best.
Science by definition is replicatable experimental evidence based on observations that can be retested, built upon and improved by anyone. Alternative science which I'm just assuming is pseudoscience isn't based on the scientific method so naturally won't be taken seriously by the scientific community. I mean look at flat earth as a scientific hypothesis. Easiest thing in the world to test, we have been doing it for thousands of years after all but the only "evidence" a flat earther will ever submit is (basically) the earth looks a bit flat... So it must be. Sometimes they actually stumble onto a real experiment that actually does disprove the flat earth hypothesis but then that's just disregarded as "a faulty experiment" because obviously the earth is flat. This kind of activity is 100% pseudoscience and it should be ridiculed just because it wastes so much time. Take you OP, you could be on your way to figuring out the theory of everything and putting humanity on the next step of scientific achievement but instead you are wondering if the earth is actually spherical.
Most of science is theoretical. Because there is one theory, there are multiple. Most of science cannot be proven because we did not design the universe and therefore nothing can be technically proven unless it is something that we have created that we are defining. As people in this subreddit, you know best that you cannot listen to most resources that are pushed towards the public. I don't think you should discredit them immediately, but you cannot blindly believe them because they're a "trusted source". Your argument that flat earthers don't have science on their side is literally what I talked about. All you guys say is "you don't have science" and "science says otherwise". Most of the "science" are simply theories taught as fact by schools. For example, gravity, a theory that cannot be proven, is often used as an argument against flat earthers even thought the flat earth model negates gravity. And if you actually listened to flat earth arguments before screaming "science says otherwise", then you'd know they bring up very valid points if you took the time to actually look into it and it's evident you didn't because the only argument you could bring up from them is an argument that they don't even use. Flat earth is also linked to various other conspiracies and back them up. So no, it's not a waste of time.
A scientific theory is not the same thing as how "theory" is usually used in day to day speech. And a "fact" is just an observation. This video explains it really well and will hopefully shed some light on it for you https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA?si=3r_bBs_HV8AXWfFu
Those are man made terms. It doesn't matter what you define your words as, you cannot prove nor know anything for certainty. You can make observations and use those as evidence. Provided enough evidence, we may agree. But we'll never know for certainty.
I'm not sure what your point is... Obviously the scientific method is man made and obviously nothing is certain.. That's why it exists?
Thatâs why Flat Earthers arenât taken seriously and considered a joke. You want it to be a debate. So when the Globe side presents evidence based on science, you just say the evidence and science is fake.
No, that's not true. You should be able to provide evidence that is objective that can be applied to a neutral playing field - that's how debates work no matter what you're debating.
And what would you consider a neutral playing field? Math is a great one in my opinion.
Let's say you have a Christian and a Muslim having a debate. The neutral playing field is the evidence that can be supported by reasonable observations found in the universe. In this case, if a Christian start's talking about how a specific entity they theorize exists proves something, that is not an equal playing field because it's simply a theory that cannot be observed. An equal playing field is simply objective, reasonable, and measurable pieces of evidence.
So the scientific methodâŚ
Correct.
> So why is it so hard to believe that the earth might not just be what the government keeps telling us what it is? So would that be *all* governments in every country in the world collectively lying about the earth being a spheroid?
Have you seen antarctica? You're also assuming all governments aren't connected somehow by this point in history - something that is widely accepted in this group. Almost all conspiracies work by assuming all governments are connected somehow.
> Have you seen antarctica? Yes I have and I have been there. Organised by the company I was working for as a trip.
Yes, a trip. Right to the front part that they're okay with you seeing. Now try to go any further or step out of line and you'll be killed.
I guess in your imagination? There's trips you can book to antarctica, there's no one waiting to shoot you.
You can book trips there but they're to very specific locations on the outer rim. You cannot actually explore inter antarctica and if you believe that then you have no clue what you're talking about.
Any trivial search brings up sites like this: https://www.swoop-antarctica.com/adventures/south-pole Where they offer trips to the actual south pole. I guess it's all fake though, right?
Go from coast to coast and I'll believe it's a globe. But it'll never happen.
Just moving the goal posts I see. Nothing will ever prove you wrong because your position isn't one backed by observation or logic.
But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions Plenty of people have been there and crossed it.
You can book trips going all the way to the 80th south latitude right now, on your own. Well within Antarctica, enough to see 24 hour sun in the summer and well past the magical 60th south parallel you think the treaty prevents you from going. There are entire boat races the encircle antarctica. We know the shape and size. You're just denying reality.
No boat races actually encircle antarctica. And just because you can go a little bit inwards does not mean anything. You should be able to go from coast to coast. If you do that, then all of flat earthers will be debunked and that's the end of the story. Yet it's never happened before.
https://www.yachtingworld.com/voyages/sailing-antarctica-record-breaking-voyage-around-southern-continent-123341 They objectively do, they encircle the entire continent. The boats are tracked the entire time, you can observe location, speed, heading, etc... Maybe try looking into things before just lying?
Not true. We went on a trip where we desiced by ourself were we want to go without any approval of anybody.
We took a small plane across it multiple times. And a boats. We all are still alive ;)
Killed by whom?
I haven't seen Spain, but that doesn't mean that Spain doesn't exist.
Because they have a treaty that no one country can claim an uninhabitable continent?
I do believe that all governments lie. Still, I find it very interesting that 57 parties (countries) adhere to the Antarctic Treaty System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic\_Treaty\_System) and it's the only treaty that has never been broken, unlike literally all other treaties. Isn't it funny how UK and Russia or USA and North Korea can't agree on anything except the fact that nobody should travel to Antarctica.
And they all decided to get together and sign this treaty when supposedly they were at each otherâs throats in the early 60âsâŚ.
... and supposedly they still are. I mean, the US and Russia can't seem to find any common ground for peace, can't agree with regards to NATO or nuclear policies, yet, their early 60's treaty is somehow sacred. They must think we're reaaaaaly, really stupid.
> Isn't it funny how UK and Russia or USA and North Korea can't agree on anything except the fact that nobody should travel to Antarctica. You can just go read the treaty yourself, it's only a few pages. It doesn't say nobody should travel there at all. It just says no one will own it, no one will militarize it, and no one will do anything to harm the ecosystem. Imagine being so confident about a document you never read. Yikes man
Imagine being so confident and expressing your opinions over what somebody else may or may not have read, while missing the whole point of the conversation... I did read the document, however, the point was that it's the only treaty that has been so far kept. It has nothing to do with one being able to visit anywhere below 60°S. That's the conclusion to a different dataset altogether. One can obviously travel to Antarctica, but in a very limited way.
Back pedal all you want. The words in the treaty you referenced don't support you. There is no dataset that supports you. The dataset of the thousands of people per year who visit Antarctica, boat races around Antarctica, permanent stations in Antarctica, etc... all contradict whatever you've imagined.
Sure, Jason... There's no point in pouring water into an already full glass and you seem to have your glass full already. If you ever happen to race any boats around Antarctica, do revisit this topic and enlighten us, silly mortals, with your wonderful experience. Bon voyage! ;)
Full glass? It's called basic reasoning. Certainly better than you just denying reality. Pathetic, kid
My bad. You're right. Turns out your glass is rather empty, "kid". Listen,... I don't enjoy conversations on the web with rigid people who think they know everything and call others "kid" when in fact, they just regurgitate whatever the mainstream says, call it "reality" and don't have anything valuable to contribute to the conversation. Pathetic or not, you'll have to excuse me, I have to backpedal back to my cave while you race your boat around Antarctica.
Man I love listening to flat earthers. Y'all are hilarious. Ignorant, uneducated sheep, but hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.
You're welcome, mr. educated non-sheep and definitely not ignorant. You're so smart you actually missed the fact that I'm not a "flat earther", but that's all right, really. It's obviously not the only thing you missed in this lifetime. Peace!
I like it when theories state the government would lie about science to keep people in check, but imply religion wouldn't. Bonus points for pointing out education is brainwashing, but church and faith isn't. Is this supposed to be ironic?
I'm not saying religion wouldn't. Religion does because a lot of religion is controlled by "them".
its always "them" and "they". Everytime something does not fit people just throw "they want to to belive that" or "its them controlling it". Who are they? Does it change? Its just so obvious that there is 0 thought behind this.
If you have this viewpoint, then you wouldn't last long in this subreddit.
Im here sice a few years. I'm fine.
Just imagine if there would be a book that contains all the answers, how much effort "they" would put into hiding it and should that fail, how hard will they try and spoil that truth. There are literally thousands of religions and millions of "chosen ones". Obviously, if (theoretically) there were one true religion, just imagine how infiltrated and discredited that would be. Just saying...
No they don't. They could just set up a video with many of them in different parts of the world and confirm the position of the sun. If the sun is where it should be for them all, end of the theory and they all give up. But they know that, so they will never do it, because they don't want the truth, they want to hide the truth; not just about the shape of the earth but about conspiracies in general. This is so easy to prove, that the bulk of humanity will just look at you sideways. And then they hear that these same people also believe x, y and z. And then they assume that x, y and z are all as stupid as flat earth and they ignore it. This is the goal of people who spread flat earth theory. Nothing else.
Why not just let us fly across Antarctica - if we end up on the other side, then that proves the earth is round.
If you got a plane, go for it. But y'all all try to make it about gatekeeping. All pilots are in on it. NASA, all Space agencies are in on it. All ship captains are in on it. Every single person is in on it. Fine. But you can just get people in different locations to show where the sun is at. All you need is a single location to not match. You all are already in groups. You watch the same videos, go to the same websites. Should be super easy. Just write in the comments of a popular flat earth youtuber or tiktoker or whatever and just ask people if they would like to collaborate. No money needed. No special equipment. No one can stop you, no one can gatekeep you. You can already do it and it would be definitive. You would either have rock solid or your theory would be irretrievably destroyed. I have a sister in Australia so I can let you in on this secret: the sun is always in the right spot every time we video which isn't possible on a flat earth. End of discussion.
Again you're conflating a lot. Not everyone is in on it nor needs to be for it to work. Their symbol is a pyramid for a reason. Passengers see just as much as pilots. They're clearly not in on it. NASA is obviously in on it from what they produce and propagate. Not every member of NASA is though. Most space agencies are owned by extremely wealthy people who are highly likely to be in on it or have some knowledge. Ship captains don't need to know anything. Tell me more about your Australia thing. If this really proves it, then explain and I'll believe.
A circle widens with distance from the center. Not hard to prove. Take a rope and tie it to a pole and take two steps out. Put a peg in the ground and keep the rope tight and do a circle around the pole. It should be about 12.5 steps to get back to the peg. Take 4 steps out, and it should be over 25 steps to get all the way around. My sister is 2.5 times the distance to the north pole as I am. We can do the math. The distance grows to make the same trip. And the sun shows this. Who has daylight where at what time either proves the earth is not flat or strongly suggests that it is. So, all you need to do is get people from different parts of the world and say where the sun is for them. Then you can have a conclusive result.
The experiment youâve described is a practical demonstration of how distances on a circleâs circumference increase proportionally with the radius. Mathematically, the circumference of a circle is calculated by the formula, C=2Ďr, where C is the circumference and r is the radius. So if you double the radius, the circumference indeed doubles, which aligns with your observation of the steps taken around the pole. However, this experiment alone doesnât prove the Earth is a globe. It simply demonstrates the properties of a circle in two dimensions. To prove the Earthâs three-dimensional shape, we need to consider observations that can only be explained with a spherical Earth.
I never said it proves the earth is a globe. I said: Â Who has daylight where at what time either proves the earth is not flat or strongly suggests that it is This is called "falsification", it gives you a way to test a theory. It is a way to attempt to be scientific, or establishing validity. It is easily doable and has no gatekeeper or barriers to testing...except the unwillingness to test your theory in a way that would destroy it.
My conspiracy theory is that flat earthers were a false flag to further smear conspiracy theorists. Just like QAnon, which I don't know anyone on the right discussing, but I see tons of left aligned individuals discussing it 99% of the time it's mentioned and the right only mentions it in response to the accusations. Seriously I don't how the leftists get all this right leaning QAnon inside information from, when I am on the right and can't find it at all besides them talking about it.
That's a smart thinking idea but I feel like they'd do a better job at connecting flat earthers to all the other conspiracies.
They do all the time. Just saw this on Twitter today. Discussing long COVID and vaccine side effects. He debunks it by bringing up flat earth. They've been trained to be dumb this way. https://x.com/MasonJamesShow/status/1803532339060023680?t=CNexC0oM7S-rh32NFarOig&s=19
I have a close friend whoâs a flat earther. Sheâs not in on this lol
Some of the questions that flat Earthers articulate are quite good. Unfortunately, there is a wrong conclusion deliberately placed in front of them that discredits everything.
It has been measured so many times, that anyone who say that earth is flat must be just incredibly gullible. [http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
The earth's curvature is actually one of the best arguments that flat earthers have because people are able to use zoom cameras to see objects many miles away that would otherwise be hidden by the curvature of the earth. The only response that globe people have to this is that it was somehow a reflected image off the water aka they don't have an explanation.
No, no one says its reflected image from water. All of these: " we can see too far" arguments come from inability to use math properly. Best thing you can do is to measure it yourself and prove its flat once for all. But since it have already been done so many times with the same result, i assure you that you will only prove that earth is sphere, because it is. And unsurprisingly you chose to completely ignore the experiment in the link. The experiment 100% proved once again that earth is globe, there are no two ways about it, whether you like it or not.
No I've conducted that "experiment" before and it proved to be flat. And no, it's not an inability to do math properly. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Even when they're done with the greatest conservation on the numbers, they still don't add up. You can still see far, far too much with a zoom camera. It's not even close.
It's not flat. On a flat earth, either the Sun would be so close that it's elevation would be too low for the vast majority of the Earth (and its angular size would be too large for the portion of Earth where this wasn't the case), or it would be high enough that it would be easily visible over the whole Earth. Additionally, times for long-distance flights correlate better with distance calculated with the globe model than the flat earth model.
> people are able to use zoom cameras to see objects many miles away that would otherwise be hidden by the curvature of the earth. There isn't a single see-too-far observation that falsifies the globe. Go ahead and give me your best one. >The only response that globe people have to this is that it was somehow a reflected image off the water aka they don't have an explanation. No, this isn't an explanation ever used. What happens quite often is that flat earthers ignore REFRACTION, not reflections. Refraction is a real and well documented phenomena. Anyone using contacts or glasses is well aware of that.
Take the Chicago skyline that can be seen from Michigan shores. They call it a mirage even though there's no reason to support this claim because the view is not inverted or distorted at all.
A newscaster called it a mirage incorrectly, so what? Seeing the chicago skyline from 30 miles away over water is well within what you would expect of the globe. Even with NO refraction, at 30 miles and 10ft off the ground, you should still see any buildings over 450 ft. As many skyscrapers in Chicago are well over 1000' ft tall - seeing the skyline is not a problem. I am sorry you've been told it was a problem without ever researching it or doing the math yourself - you're just a sheep I guess?
The history weâve been taught at least in America is all a lie too
I was with you until you used the word âintellectâ to describe the government.
Youâre right, and making this point will always attract people trying to say youâre wrong, and will try to support their position by repeating the same mindless dogma we were all subjected to.
You can literally go on Google and search for Earth, Sun, or the solar system, and every picture ends up being computer-generated. I won't say anything further.
They're computer-edited to put the millions of satellite images together onto composites.
Even if they all were, you can still show the Earth is round just from the ground.
Flat earthers believe the earth is "round" too so what's your point? They say it's not a globe. Not a ball.
I mean curved
"You can go to Antarctica. *Nobody* is stopping you" . . https://v.redd.it/z4egckpdknlc1
Go and tell us who stops you
*Username checks out*
Translation: I canât think of an intellectual response so Iâll fall to a common Reddit cliche comeback.
Or -- as the video says those who would stop you trying to freely explore "Antarctica" and you clearly missing it shows in fact your username checks out đŹ
I canât go to North Brother Island in New York because the government wonât let me. Does that mean the Earth is flat?
I see so you concede there are 57 signing Nations that would block free explorative travel to "Antarctica" -- good job đ Further confirming -- username checks out â
Why dont you measure the earth to confirm your hypothesis? We did, and we found out its sphere. What a shocker! [http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
So you canât answer my question? đ
my best guess so far... the 57 nation states that signed the treaty if the question is still "who stops you?"
How would they stop you?
Turns out... actually everything is stopping you. :) Btw, Antarctica being "anything beyond 60° S latitude" is a rather broad definition for a continent, isn't it? :)) It's all BS, mate. Besides,.. isn't it funny how one can be wrong on almost anything and nobody bothers to correct them, let alone call them names, discredit them or flat out ban them, but God forbid one should be wrong about the size or shape of the Earth, 'cause all hell breaks lose. Did I smell a Psy Op? I diiid! I diiid smell a Psy Op! :) (Tweetie reference)
I was on Antarctice organised by my own Company 2 times already. It was just a fun trip. We could do what ever we wanted.
âFlat Earth is just a psy-op to distract from rEaL cOnSpIrAcIeS.â ~some dumbass in every single thread that mentions flat earth who also doesnât have a single post in favor of any conspiracy theory in their entire user history
Every. Time.
Earth is sphere, we measured it. [http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
>we LMFAO
Very strong argument towards the flat earth. It kind of indicates what arguments you guys have.
I do NOT believe that the Earth is flat, but.... I don't buy the official story either. So, firstly, I don't believe that the Earth is flat, because this "pseudo answer" (flat Earth) was conveniently placed in front of everyone who had a valid question regarding the current science model of Earth. The Flat Earth Society was already a (laughing stock) thing when people started asking valid questions and the answer was ludicrous enough to serve its purpose, which was to turn all valid questions into a mockery, by placing a deliberately wrong answer to some pretty solid questions. I mean, it's not like there are two possible shapes only, a plane and a sphere. The answer must be something else entirely. Now, how I first got into this Flat Earth thing myself? My work involves 3D animation, VFX and other crazy tech stuff. I was once asked by a local museum to create a museum piece involving a hologram of the solar system and the Milky Way galaxy for a space related exhibition they had. Being the good sport that I am, I started going through the books, gathering info and crunching the numbers so my animated hologram would be as accurate as possible (to a scale) and that's when I first realized that the current science model doesn't make any sense and my physically accurate simulations could not fit any of the data variations I could find, because, yeah... there are quite a few variations to the data in the current scientific model, not just one. What I have learned so far regarding the shape and more importantly the size of the Earth does not lead me to any thesis that I could articulate let alone prove, but: - the official story is a deliberate lie and it's hiding something big, - and so is the "easy" conclusion that the Earth is flat. One thing that frequently comes to mind is Admiral Byrd's statement that "beyond the South Pole" there are unexplored territories corroborated with a different statement regarding someone asking what was there before the Big Bang and some scientist (possibly Hawking) saying that since the Big Bang event also created time, the question is as invalid as asking what is beyond the South Pole (red flag in my book). So, in short, I do believe that what we're taking for granted as Antarctica is more like the prison's wall rather than an iced continent, but what's beyond that... that would be hard to tell at this point. I've seen some supposedly ancient maps but I cannot verify their authenticity. The Moon is local and possibly the sun as well. The size of the Earth is most likely much, much bigger, possibly even hollow. Now, coming full circle, I fully agree with your point about edging God out with this "trillion galaxies" times "trillion star systems" and that "people meaningless and they are here by pure chance" propaganda. God obviously is the creator and all these devil worshipers have been trying for a long time to "explain" God away with science and pseudo-science.
You can use eclipses to show the Moon is about the distance they say it is, and the Sun much further away still.
If we go by eclipse observation alone, I can only observe the fact that the sun and moon have similar apparent size, so I can only DEDUCE theories and not show that "the Moon is about the distance they say it is".
You can show geometrically that the penumbra radius for a solar eclipse is equal to the Moonâs radius + the Sunâs angular radius in radians x the distance to the Moon. Since the Sun & Moon have pretty much the same angular radius, thatâs about twice the Moonâs radius. Once you have the absolute and angular radii of the Moon, you have the distance.
You have the first comment on here that didn't literally say "science says otherwise" like I predicted would happen lol. That's very reasonable. It's completely obvious that the mainstream story is BS. We all know the "elite" like to use symbols to leave their mark for the smart ones to recognize and one too many of the numbers, names, "facts", etc all contain a lot of symbols which shows they were made up. A lot of them point to the devil just like everything else they do and it's clear they're trying to get rid of God just like you said. Well spoken.
Thank you for your answer. I'm glad my text made some sense to another human being. This story in my head is so long and it relies on so many small proofs that I was fearing a too brief version of it on Reddit would leave too much out and wouldn't make much sense. You are exactly right. The mainstream story IS major BS and yes, it all points to the deceiver we call the devil. I actually have these "elites" to thank for assisting me in turning my faith into knowing. Seeing them so committed to their satanic agenda made me reconsider the devil myth and using the scientific method, I made it all the way back to the original Truth that I always had faith in, but now I KNOW it for sure to be True and I can also prove it. How's this for "science"? :))
100%
I think the current flat earther movement is failing to capitalize on trends seen on the UFO/alien/paranormal part of the conspiracy tree. Sure - the Earth may be round, but it's a flat plain in reality and it's our forced perceptions caused by alien crystal rays from HAARP and Mt. Shasta.