Flat Earth theory

[ThePrincessLuxy]

Yep, apparently. Following their logic, chocolate milk comes from brown cows, banana milk comes from yellow cows and strawberry milk from the red ones.
Seems legit.

Holy shit, theres banana milk?! D: TIL so many things

 

[NotToday]

I came across videos of Neil Degrasse Tyson and Obama mocking a group called "flatearthers" so with a bit of curiosity I asked Saint Google what a Flatearther is. Turns out it is people who believe in this day and age that the Earth is flat.

This only sparked my curiosity even more (who could possibly think the Earth is flat and what makes them think this?), so I have been researching it for a couple of weeks now. I have to say that the more I look into it the more doubts I have about our current model. I am wondering if any of you have taken the time to read or watch anything on the topic and what your ideas are.

Why is this here !? Oh god... This trend is ...

Do their views include four elephants and a turtle?

If they DO... I'll change my mind.

PD: This song is an experiment of this Spanish YT guys "how will be the most trend song right now if it will exist..." well they do it and look the views...

 

[Tartan]

What if Earth is the round end of gods magic wand?

 

[Mila_]

Why is this here !? Oh god... This trend is ...

If they DO... I'll change my mind.

PD: This song is an experiment of this Spanish YT guys "how will be the most trend song right now if it will exist..." well they do it and look the views...

Looks like you speak spanish so watch this video maybe it will make you respect them a little

 

[NotToday]

Ok girl.

 

[Puffin]

I came across videos of Neil Degrasse Tyson and Obama mocking a group called "flatearthers" so with a bit of curiosity I asked Saint Google what a Flatearther is. Turns out it is people who believe in this day and age that the Earth is flat.

This only sparked my curiosity even more (who could possibly think the Earth is flat and what makes them think this?), so I have been researching it for a couple of weeks now. I have to say that the more I look into it the more doubts I have about our current model. I am wondering if any of you have taken the time to read or watch anything on the topic and what your ideas are.

Well done. I'm impressed when someone makes the effort to do some research. I did some research myself a few years back without any conclusions.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Anybody ever tried to make sense of things like quantum mechanics, string theory, that sort of stuff?

I don't know how close these attempts to model our reality are to accurate, or whether they are just mathematical gibberish with no connection to reality. But some of the implications (if correct) blow anything I have heard from the flat earth crowd out of the water when it comes to absurd possibilities.

 

[Mila_]

Anybody ever tried to make sense of things like quantum mechanics, string theory, that sort of stuff?

I don't know how close these attempts to model our reality are to accurate, or whether they are just mathematical gibberish with no connection to reality. But some of the implications (if correct) blow anything I have heard from the flat earth crowd out of the water when it comes to absurd possibilities.

Quantum physics and relativity have been impossible to reconcile for what? A century now? If the Earth is flat and stationary, relativity would be wrong and there would no longer be this schism in theoretical physics. I suspect quantum mechanics would be more aligned with all flat Earth models as well because most come from ancient cosmogonies

 

[dilligaf0]

Quantum physics and relativity have been impossible to reconcile for what? A century now? If the Earth is flat and stationary, relativity would be wrong and there would no longer be this schism in theoretical physics. I suspect quantum mechanics would be more aligned with all flat Earth models as well because most come from ancient cosmogonies

If the Earth is flat, does it spin?
If it spins, why is gravity a downward force and not a centrifugal force?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

If the Earth is flat, does it spin?
If it spins, why is gravity a downward force and not a centrifugal force?

(forgive me, but I have an insatiable appetite for low-hanging fruit)

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Quantum physics and relativity have been impossible to reconcile for what? A century now? If the Earth is flat and stationary, relativity would be wrong and there would no longer be this schism in theoretical physics. I suspect quantum mechanics would be more aligned with all flat Earth models as well because most come from ancient cosmogonies

I don't understand this. More and more of Einstein theories have been shown to be true from experimental results. Plus quantum mechanics does a good job of explaining the duality of light, being both a particle and wave, which is the essence of relatively.

But forget all the super complicated, stuff that makes our brains hurt.

How do you or flat earther explain the very simple things. Like how come on normal days you can't see relatively tall objects like building from fairly short distance like 30-50 miles? You said you've seen videos where the ships don't disappear hull first. I've never seen that. But it doesn't matter if the earth is flat, ships shouldn't disappear over the horizon at all. Logically, if you can see any object at distance, you should be able to see ALL objects as long as there isn't something that obstructs the line of sight. You might need a pair of binoculars but for a large object like tanker or container you should be able to see them 100 miles out to sea from the shore, and yet you can't.

Here is another experiment to try. On a clear day go to the top of tall (20+ stories) building and take pictures. On the same day (to ensure similar atmospheric condition) go to the top of nearest hill of say 500-1000' meter and take pictures. You'll notice you can see much further from the hill than the building. This makes perfect sense if the earth is curved but no sense if the earth is flat.

 

[Mila_]

I don't understand this. More and more of Einstein theories have been shown to be true from experimental results. Plus quantum mechanics does a good job of explaining the duality of light, being both a particle and wave, which is the essence of relatively.

But forget all the super complicated, stuff that makes our brains hurt.

How do you or flat earther explain the very simple things. Like how come on normal days you can't see relatively tall objects like building from fairly short distance like 30-50 miles? You said you've seen videos where the ships don't disappear hull first. I've never seen that. But it doesn't matter if the earth is flat, ships shouldn't disappear over the horizon at all. Logically, if you can see any object at distance, you should be able to see ALL objects as long as there isn't something that obstructs the line of sight. You might need a pair of binoculars but for a large object like tanker or container you should be able to see them 100 miles out to sea from the shore, and yet you can't.

Here is another experiment to try. On a clear day go to the top of tall (20+ stories) building and take pictures. On the same day (to ensure similar atmospheric condition) go to the top of nearest hill of say 500-1000' meter and take pictures. You'll notice you can see much further from the hill than the building. This makes perfect sense if the earth is curved but no sense if the earth is flat.

For the 10th time on this thread, I am not a flat earther, I am simply talking about what they believe and things I find interesting. So I am just posting things I’ve read them say. Either way if you care to see an interesting video on this subject and since you already talked about light refraction, maybe play this and give it a watch



From minute 4:34 if you want to begin at the juiciest bit.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

TIL so many things

You and me both. I've learned that the Earth is basically a big flat pizza in the solar system. Love pizza, so I like the idea. Now, the only reason I can think of as to why world governments are globally (key world g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y) trying to hide this delicious truth from the people is because it may have pineapple on it. So, I mean, yeah, it makes sense afterall.

 

[dilligaf0]

You and me both. I've learned that the Earth is basically a big flat pizza in the solar system. Love pizza, so I like the idea. Now, the only reason I can think of as to why world governments are globally (key world g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y) trying to hide this delicious truth from the people is because it may have pineapple on it. So, I mean, yeah, it makes sense afterall.

It does, but only in Hawaii.

 

[dilligaf0]

If this theory is true:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/?amp via
Then wouldn't it have to be flat since it would be projected onto a monitor screen?

 

[briandf255]

I wonder what flat-earthers say about satellite images of earth or photos taken from the space station or all the NASA missions that have taken photos of earth from space or flew by other planets and their satellites (using their gravity as well as the sun's gravity to help propel them farther) - that they are all fake?

As for the stuff about gravity not existing and things only fall because they are heavier than air. That doesn't make any sense. The concept of weight does not exist without gravity, so it cannot be used to explain why objects fall to earth when there is no gravity. Gravity is what gives objects their weight, so without gravity they do not weigh anything and the concept of heaviness does not exist. (the concept of mass would still exist, but mass doesn't have anything to do with falling.)

And if there is no gravity, what keeps the air on earth anyways? How do they explain that the air is denser at sea level than at the top of Mount Everest? If there is no gravity, wouldn't air density be the same regardless of elevation? Air is not heavier than air, so why should there be more air at lower elevations than at high elevations?

 

[Mila_]

I wonder what flat-earthers say about satellite images of earth or photos taken from the space station or all the NASA missions that have taken photos of earth from space or flew by other planets and their satellites (using their gravity as well as the sun's gravity to help propel them farther) - that they are all fake?

NASA is all fake according to flat earthers. Actually the whole "Flat Earth" thing started out because of space bubbles in NASA videos.

1) Bubbles in space.. when NASA publishes videos of space walks and such.. sometimes you can see little bubbles rising up from the ships which makes it seem like they could be recording these videos from inside a water tank on Earth instead of in Space.



2) When the video is live from the International Space Station very weird things happen. This guy is an expert in 3D animation and special effects and narrates it in a video



3) Photos of Earth from space are all composites. They are made in Photoshop. This is not something the flat earthers believe but something NASA designers themselves have stated publicly.. that the pictures are not real but composites of the data they have. Continents change size in different "blue marble" shots, some of them were doctored with the clone tool so the clouds repeat patterns.. and in the shots of Earth from the Moon from the Apollo mission if you open it on photoshop and alter the levels you can see a square around the Earth like it was added in.



4) Famous Devon Island Mars photos taken with the rover according to NASA have been found to be pictures of places on Earth with red filters on:



5) According to Flat Earth theory satellites are also a hoax since all we have of satellites in orbit are 3D composites and animations. Some flat-earthers think satellites are not in orbit and they aren't launched but put in high elevation hot air balloons that can go as far as 50 kilometers up. The evidence to back that up is some satellites have fallen and they are always attached to balloons. Also the fact that the thermosphere is at 2000 degrees celsius and your average satellite is made of aluminum, alum alloys, silicone and bits and parts of titanium... now the melting point for aluminum is way below 2000 C. So how are satellites resisting the thermosphere heat?

As for the stuff about gravity not existing and things only fall because they are heavier than air. That doesn't make any sense. The concept of weight does not exist without gravity, so it cannot be used to explain why objects fall to earth when there is no gravity. Gravity is what gives objects their weight, so without gravity they do not weigh anything and the concept of heaviness does not exist. (the concept of mass would still exist, but mass doesn't have anything to do with falling.)

Well, the idea of gravity was proposed to explain why things don't fall off the spherical Earth. It was Newton's answer to Copernicus model. We still don't know what gravity is anyway because it's never been proven empirically, it is a theoretical concept. If the Earth is flat then you wouldn't need to explain why objects don't fall off it, it is simply caused by objects being heavier and denser than the ones they are in. And I have also heard flat earthers talk about electromagnetism as the only force, but I don't understand it very well so you would have to research that on your own. Even Nikola Tesla doubted gravity and flat out rejected relativity. And Tesla was a globe-earther so you can even doubt gravity without subscribing to the Flat Earth model.

 

[briandf255]

When it comes to gravity, maybe flat-earthers don't need gravity to explain why things don't fall off earth if it's a disk and we are never "upside down", but they do need to explain why things fall towards it and what makes us stick to it.

1) If there is no gravity, then if you hold a pencil in the air and you let it go, it should stay where it is instead of falling to the ground. Since it does have mass, it shouldn't start moving on its own unless you either throw it (instead of just letting it go) or if there is a force acting on it. That force has been named gravity. If it doesn't exist, then what makes the pencil start moving?

2) If there is no gravity, if you jump up you would keep floating upwards until air resistance slows you down and eventually stops you - but nothing would make you fall back down again. Like I said in my previous comment - weight is a consequence of gravity. No gravity = no weight. So without gravity you would be weightless and there would be no reason for you to fall.

Same applies to the points I raised in my previous post about air being denser near the sea level than at very high elevations. Or even to explain what keeps celestial objects in place - and what makes them move.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say gravity has "never been proven". Gravity is what we call the force that attracts objects when they both have mass. We gave it that name. Saying gravity has not been proven is sort of like saying that the wind has not been proven. Maybe we don't fully understand why there is gravity and how exactly it works, but there is no doubt that the force in question exists, so in that sense it has been proven. There are equations that predict many things that have to do with gravity, like the bending of light and things like that. Those are all observable and measurable facts.

I'm curious if your research consists of reading only how flat-earthers explain things or if you're also reading what scientists have to say about their explanations. Have you tried to find out what scientists had to say about the claims in those videos?

I'm just asking because if you only hear one side's arguments and you don't have enough knowledge of science to detect BS on your own then pretty much anything can be convincing if you only hear their side - flat-earthers, scientologists, astrologists, creationists, etc.

 

[briandf255]

I should add that hearing both sides needs to include treating the claims made by both sides with equal amount of scepticism - not by reacting to one side's claims with an "I don't know if that's true, but I'll take your word for it", but asking the other side to prove everything before you accept any of their claims. If the rules are biased then the whole process of hearing both sides is useless.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

4) Famous Devon Island Mars photos taken with the rover according to NASA have been found to be pictures of places on Earth with red filters on:

View attachment 78834

Devon Island is way up north on earth and is meant to mimic the harsh conditions of the moon (freezing temps, light/dark cycles of the moon, etc.). NASA has never denied that this place exists, and if anyone thinks said pictures are from space is whacked...

 

[Mila_]

I should add that hearing both sides needs to include treating the claims made by both sides with equal amount of scepticism - not by reacting to one side's claims with an "I don't know if that's true, but I'll take your word for it", but asking the other side to prove everything before you accept any of their claims. If the rules are biased then the whole process of hearing both sides is useless.

Looks like my tongue is gonna fall off from saying I am not a flat earther and I didn’t create this thread to debunk or prove anything but simply to post things I find interesting and thought provoking about their beliefs. I studied all the official explanations in school plus a couple of years of a biology major I didn’t finish and I haven’t found any actual explanations from scientists about this only mockery simply because the point of most flat earth videos is to debunk the globe so it’s kinda hard to debunk the debunk. What I did see was some nervous reactions like Neil Degrasse Tyson calling the Earth pear shaped. Pear shaped? Yes, looks like it’s no longer a spheroid with flattened poles, now we are a pear. Forces one to wonder if they are doing this to have an answer at the question of the lack of curvature and horizon problems. Much easier to defend if Earth is irregular in shape

 

[briandf255]

Looks like my tongue is gonna fall off from saying I am not a flat earther and I didn’t create this thread to debunk or prove anything but simply to post things I find interesting and thought provoking about their beliefs.

Yes, I saw where you said that, but you're presenting the things they claim without any commentary of your own other than to say it's "interesting", so the only thing I could think of to do to make this into a discussion is to respond to those claims. (Or I guess I could post memes or crack jokes like some of the other posters have.)

I have no way of knowing whether you agree or disagree with anything I said or anything they said, because you just post their claims and leave it at that. Other than to say you're not a flat-earther you didn't really make any comment about the validity of their claims or the validity of the claims of the posters who tried to debunk those claims. If you just wanted to post this stuff and then have people respond with an "Oh, yeah. That's interesting." without wanting to debate it and I'm derailing your thread then I apologize and I'll stop commenting here.

 

[JickyJuly]

Sorry if I missed it, but what do they think would be the purpose of fake NASA? I think if the US was going to put a fake NASA somewhere, they'd pick an area that it would create new tourism in. The space coast over there would already be money without it.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Also the fact that the thermosphere is at 2000 degrees celsius and your average satellite is made of aluminum, alum alloys, silicone and bits and parts of titanium... now the melting point for aluminum is way below 2000 C. So how are satellites resisting the thermosphere heat?

Well now that one got me. The little picture games, not so much, but I had to go look that one up.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Well now that one got me. The little picture games, not so much, but I had to go look that one up.

Satellites don't orbit in the thermosphere. They orbit in the exosphere, which is significantly cooler. If they reenter atmosphere, they begin to burn up in the thermosphere and then others as they plunge to earth.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Satellites don't orbit in the thermosphere. They orbit in the exosphere, which is significantly cooler. If they reenter atmosphere, they begin to burn up in the thermosphere and then others as they plunge to earth.

Better explanation...not enough molecules to transfer the heat. The closely packed molecules of a solid object (satellite) do heat up, but they also radiate the heat; the hotter they get, the faster they radiate heat. Equilibrium is reached before the temperature can rise to the level described.

I read that satellites DO orbit in the thermosphere; but for all I know, they are one big scam.

 

[Nikola Tesla]

Even Nikola Tesla doubted gravity

Ahahahaha. I've changed my mind

 

[Mila_]

Yes, I saw where you said that, but you're presenting the things they claim without any commentary of your own other than to say it's "interesting", so the only thing I could think of to do to make this into a discussion is to respond to those claims. (Or I guess I could post memes or crack jokes like some of the other posters have.)

I have no way of knowing whether you agree or disagree with anything I said or anything they said, because you just post their claims and leave it at that. Other than to say you're not a flat-earther you didn't really make any comment about the validity of their claims or the validity of the claims of the posters who tried to debunk those claims. If you just wanted to post this stuff and then have people respond with an "Oh, yeah. That's interesting." without wanting to debate it and I'm derailing your thread then I apologize and I'll stop commenting here.

My opinion on this is irrelevant because I don't have any experience, formation or knowledge aside from Youtube videos that I have watched. If I was in a position to talk about this or have anything enlightening to say that I thought would enrich the conversation I would. That doesn't mean I can't talk about it. It is okay from my understanding of ACF to post links and videos on the board if you talk about them, and I have... I have done summaries, responded to people's questions and given relevant information so I hope I brought interesting points up. The complaint of me not doing a commentary is unfair. I don't have to tell you my own personal and intimate beliefs about the world we live in in order to have a conversation with the forum on this matter nor do we need to debate this like adversaries on a TV debate show. If we were discussing Mayan cosmogony you wouldn't be pressing so hard to hear my beliefs: "do you or do you not believe in quetzalcoatl the serpent god, Mila? You ahve given us NOTHING!"

That said if you want me to comment on the so called "validity" of their claims, here is my commentary: I have not personally gone to Space. I have not seen the Earth from Space. I do believe governments capable of deception on a large scale. I have seen troubling NASA videos that make me think it is indeed staged. What I see is this knowledge is in the hands of very few people, those who can actually go to Space. So there is a bottleneck when it comes to proving anything, only those with access can. It reminds me a lot of religion where there is only a few who have access to God and the rest have to accept their word for it. I dont like that. Now.. NASA could be lying AND the Earth could be a globe, it's not mutually exclusive. So there's that. I do have to go to a beach and try the horizon experiment on my own, maybe buy a Nikon P900 for it. Don't know if I care enough to spend $1000 on it.

Here is where the difference between you and me lies... I am open to anything. I don't close myself up to new ideas. I don't mock people for their beliefs, I listen. @HiGirlsRHot calls me "mind-reader" as a jab... but I am someone who detects patterns and likes to think ahead. So when Trump announced his candidacy I was among the first people to say "He will win" even here on this board. Everyone laughed at me, and he won. I called the Payoneer bankruptcy one month before it happened here on this forum... models called me paranoic and crazy... now many lost all their savings. I called MFC's traffic problem in 2015 and switched to Chaturbate they also called me crazy then. Why can I know these things beforehand? I can't read minds.. but I do listen. Most people don't talk. Especially when there is social risk in it.. you wont hear many talk about the flat earth. But when I see a few people talk about this on youtube, even if it's a fringe group.. I know the real numbers are much, much higher. Most people prefers to mock them, insult them, call them stupid and take out some science book off their shelves.. so they don't speak up. But there are A LOT of people in that movement and it's only going to grow. Then when things invariably happen... like Trump winning.. your side is blindsided and so, so surprised.. all the signs where there.. you just had to listen.

I will respond to Jicky's question later cause that's a subject I do know a great deal about

 

[briandf255]

My opinion on this is irrelevant because I don't have any experience, formation or knowledge aside from Youtube videos that I have watched. If I was in a position to talk about this or have anything enlightening to say that I thought would enrich the conversation I would. That doesn't mean I can't talk about it. It is okay from my understanding of ACF to post links and videos on the board if you talk about them, and I have... I have done summaries, responded to people's questions and given relevant information so I hope I brought interesting points up. The complaint of me not doing a commentary is unfair. I don't have to tell you my own personal and intimate beliefs about the world we live in in order to have a conversation with the forum on this matter nor do we need to debate this like adversaries on a TV debate show. If we were discussing Mayan cosmogony you wouldn't be pressing so hard to hear my beliefs: "do you or do you not believe in quetzalcoatl the serpent god, Mila? You ahve given us NOTHING!"

Except you didn't present this as something you have any reason to doubt, but as something that may have merit. If you presented Maya cosmology (click the word Maya to learn something new) as something relevant today, I'm sure people would have tried to convince you not that it's wrong, but there is no compelling reason to believe it. The flat Earth model - and yes, I'll say it: sadly - still has its adherents today. I'm sure some people still believe in Tlaloc and Quetzalcoatl, but not quiet enough to be alarming.

Also, I didn't complain about you not adding your own comments nor did I say you should have. I'm not sure what the heck you were reading instead of what I actually wrote. I merely stated that you posted what the flat-earthers claim without adding any comments of your own, so the only thing I and others could respond to were the claims themselves, given that you didn't add anything to them. This upset you and you complained that people were trying to debunk the claims and you didn't like that.

That said if you want me to comment on the so called "validity" of their claims, here is my commentary: I have not personally gone to Space. I have not seen the Earth from Space. I do believe governments capable of deception on a large scale. I have seen troubling NASA videos that make me think it is indeed staged. What I see is this knowledge is in the hands of very few people, those who can actually go to Space. So there is a bottleneck when it comes to proving anything, only those with access can. It reminds me a lot of religion where there is only a few who have access to God and the rest have to accept their word for it. I dont like that. Now.. NASA could be lying AND the Earth could be a globe, it's not mutually exclusive. So there's that. I do have to go to a beach and try the horizon experiment on my own, maybe buy a Nikon P900 for it. Don't know if I care enough to spend $1000 on it.

That's no reason to treat the claims as equal, though. The currently accepted model of the universe has a lot of explaining power and many experiments and observations supporting it, whereas the flat Earth model was discarded by mainstream science hundreds of years ago. If you think that a conspiracy to convince the population of the world that the Earth is a globe, when it's really not, could be kept up for hundreds of years (for whatever purpose that warrants an effort of this magnitude to hide the "truth" from the public) despite the fact that it would require the cooperation of many different nations that both cooperated and competed against each other at different times in the past (USA, Russia, China, a handful European nations that had a part in building the International Space Station and I'm probably leaving out a lot of others that dabbled in space exploration) and the agreement of most likely tens of thousands of scientists all pretending to agree about something they know to be false and all agreeing to hide the "truth" from the public then you're one of the most hardcore conspiracy theorists I've ever met online or offline. (Maybe this is news to you, but space exploration is not the exclusive domain of NASA or even of the United States of America.)

Here is where the difference between you and me lies... I am open to anything. I don't close myself up to new ideas. I don't mock people for their beliefs, I listen.

Show me where I mocked anyone, please.

I know today it's fashionable to hold up being extremely open-minded as the highest virtue, but open-mindedness alone is not enough. Without a healthy dose of scepticism and critical thinking, just being open-minded opens you up to uncritically accepting a lot of nonsense. Open-mindedness is the willingness the entertain the possibility that something may be true and not rejecting any claim without first evaluating it. But apparently you have gone much further than that... If you had any knowledge of physics, then you could apply that and see which model (flat earth vs. globe) seems to be the more compatible with what you already know. If you don't know any physics then you can either remain neutral (which you clearly aren't, because now you're predicting that flat-earthers will eventually overthrow our current scientific model of the universe) or you can decide whether you should believe a few hundred years of accumulated scientific knowledge based on experiments and observations or a group of I don't know how many individuals, most of whom are laypeople who claim that the aforementioned knowledge is actually a giant conspiracy. (Interesting article here: https://www.livescience.com/62220-millennials-flat-earth-belief.html )

@HiGirlsRHot calls me "mind-reader" as a jab... but I am someone who detects patterns and likes to think ahead. So when Trump announced his candidacy I was among the first people to say "He will win" even here on this board. Everyone laughed at me, and he won. I called the Payoneer bankruptcy one month before it happened here on this forum... models called me paranoic and crazy... now many lost all their savings. I called MFC's traffic problem in 2015 and switched to Chaturbate they also called me crazy then. Why can I know these things beforehand? I can't read minds.. but I do listen. Most people don't talk. Especially when there is social risk in it.. you wont hear many talk about the flat earth. But when I see a few people talk about this on youtube, even if it's a fringe group.. I know the real numbers are much, much higher. Most people prefers to mock them, insult them, call them stupid and take out some science book off their shelves.. so they don't speak up. But there are A LOT of people in that movement and it's only going to grow. Then when things invariably happen... like Trump winning.. your side is blindsided and so, so surprised.. all the signs where there.. you just had to listen.

The flat-earth movement is more of an indication of the failure of the American education system than a movement that's growing because the facts are on its side. It's growing because most people know so little science that they lack the ability to tell real science from pseudoscience or even from scientific sounding nonsense. (After all we're talking about the only "modern" country where creationism came very close to being taught in schools, because of a very effective public relations campaign by creationists to "teach the controversy".)

The public has so little understanding of science, and as a consequence so little respect for it, that they will put any crank's idea on equal footing with established mainstream science. The usual: "Well, science has been wrong before, therefore anyone who challenges science is probably right."

That's "open-mindedness" these days. Like I said, it's sad.

 

[Mila_]

a) Where did I say I believe in it? I don't, I just have a lot of doubts and the more I look into this the more doubts I have. I spend all my free time researching this... I watch flat earthers explain themselves and I think "oh god it has to be flat.." then I watch other people on YT refuting flat earthers and think "oh god, no, it's round, of course it's round" and over and over again. I simply cannot pick a side because I am still trying to understand all the information I am picking up. You can't deny someone's legitimate right to doubt. It is the basis of science to be able to doubt and ponder, and see different sides of a thing.. and asking questions. It is not because I am stupid or gullible or because the education system failed me. It is really condescending to think this way about other people, especially when it is clear to me you haven't taken a single minute to watch anything I posted.

b) Where did I say that flat earthers would overthrow the current model? I merely said that we will see this movement grow exponentially in the following 2 or 3 years. Mark my words, mockery will first become intense, but it wont be able to stop it, in 2 or 3 years it will reach critical mass and people will start saying it publicly. And in a few more years we will see model wars online, like we saw in the past elections.

c) Here is the thing... you haven't been to space. You haven't done your own experiments or read about experiments being done or you would understand that Earth movement has never been proven in fact every experiment that has ever been done proves the opposite: that it is stationary, this is why Einstein came up with Relativity to explain it away... and he did.. theoretically. The thing with theoretical physics is you can build an empire on a wrong assumption. Tesla thought it was completely divorced from reality.

So when you flat out deny something from the start without even looking into it, that means you don't believe in science, you believe in the word of famous scientists. This is a lot like faith, like religion. You see, science is about empirical observation and demonstration, about being able to replicate the results of experiments. It doesn't take a lot to debunk a long held theory, it only takes exceptions to call it into question. When new information is available that proves that the current model is mistaken then you shouldn't ignore it in favor of the word of an authority simply because it is what you were told and what the establishment holds.

Science is not a monolith, for every single theory there is always dissent. There is politics in science and groups of pressure trying to silence minorities within scientific community. It is very hard for a group on the fringe to gain any momentum if the establishment opposes it. Eventually though it all comes to light, it may take 2 years, it may take 5 centuries, but things do come to light eventually.

I am going to give you one more video for you to watch. It's about the Earth curvature and things we aren't supposed to be able to see in the distance because they should fall beyond the Earth's curvature. This one is impossible to explain with optical illusions or mirage theories because there is a sunset right behind the mountains. Give it a watch and tell me what you think.