Are Flat Earthers As Crazy As We're Led To Believe?
If you're anything like me, then you have probably spent some time on YouTube watching conspiracy theory videos and attempting to make some sense of the world we live in. Some of these videos are very informative, where as some are completely absurd and impossible to believe. One of these theories that constantly pops up in the related videos section, is the Flat Earth Theory.
In case you are wondering, it is exactly how it sounds. There are an ever-growing number of people that believe that the spherical model of the Earth that we have all been taught since childhood, is nothing more than a malicious lie perpetuated by the world's governments and space programs.
There was scarcely a time that I could visit YouTube without a video relating to this theory being suggested to me but, I couldn't stop myself from thinking, "Flat Earth? No way... This must be someone making a joke."
After weeks, if not months of neglecting to investigate, I finally gave in. I wanted to know why there were so many of these of videos popping up and who was making them. I also felt that I could no longer claim to be devoted to the truth if I was unwilling to look at every side of the argument. It was time for me to dive head-first into the rabbit hole.
After as little as one viewing of a flat Earth video, I had questions. As always, I had a look at the comments on the video to see what other people were saying about it. It was difficult to find a comment containing any level of sustenance. I learned that I had not been the only one thinking that Flat Earthers may be crazy, with three out of four comments being ad hominem attacks on the poster of the video or inquiries regarding the author's sanity.
It was evident from some of the comments, that merely theorizing a flat Earth was offensive to a lot of people. I have always enjoyed scientific debates and I am a firm believer that you should never believe something simply because everyone else does. You should always do your own research and then make a decision based on your findings. For this reason, I couldn't understand why so many people seemed to be getting upset about this.
I remembered a quote I had heard a long time ago; "condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." These words echoed throughout my mind as I searched the comments section for any scientific attempts to debunk the Flat Earth. Unfortunately, my search was answered by entirely unscientific debunking attempts.
The fact that I was always able to debunk the majority of the alleged debunkings within seconds did not help to sate my curiosity. To any that may be wondering about the two examples above;
Example One: I had learned in the video that on the Flat Earth model, the North pole is at the very centre. Simple logic then reveals to us that no matter where you are on this map, any circum-navigation of the Earth going East or West, would result in a circular path around the centre of the Earth, eventually leading you right back to where you started.
Example Two: The reasoning behind using gravity to prove the globular theory is completely flawed. Gravity was only theorized in an effort to support a spherical Earth, and it is still merely a theory. Without the need to explain why oceans would stay on a spinning ball, even when that ocean is upside down, we can revert to the simple explanation of why things rise and fall. Density. A tennis ball falls to the ground when released simply because the molecules in the tennis ball are packed more densely than that of the air surrounding it. There is a little more to it than that but, the point is, it's nowhere near as complicated to grasp as gravity; a force that for some reason only applies to objects over a certain, indiscernible mass.
After reading and watching a great number of unscientific debunkings of the Flat Earth, I felt compelled to look further into this issue. I am going to share with you my findings and I ask that you continue with an open mind. Yes, this is an absurd theory and if it is true, then it is no doubt the biggest lie ever told. However, it would be ignorant of us to write something off as a fallacy without first doing some investigating.
One of the things that makes it so difficult for people to accept the Flat Earth Theory as a possibility, is the size of the lie. The globe is such a huge part of our lives. We learn about it as soon as we start school It is part of so many logos, including the Universal Pictures logo that is at the start many of the movies we watch. There are countless films and TV shows dedicated solely to space, as well thousands of jobs which relate entirely to space observation and space travel.
It can provoke an uncomfortable level of cognitive dissonance to even entertain the thought that all of that could be a charade. For this reason, I am first going to bring to your attention a few of the reasons to distrust the globular theory we have all come to know, then I shall present you with a few pieces of evidence for the Flat Earth that I feel are of interest.
Why do we believe the Earth is round?
Most, if not all ancient civilizations believed that the Earth was flat. Some argue that these ancients were primitive beings that had neither the knowledge, nor the technology to be able to discern the shape of the Earth. My research has lead me to believe that this is the furthest thing from the truth. We all know of the magnificent ancient structures such as the Giza pyramids and Stonehenge. What most do not know is that there are hundreds of these remarkable megalithic structures around the world and new ones still being uncovered.
Do you believe that sophisticated structures, built in a such a way that they can withstand earthquakes, while being able to accurately predict the equinoxes as well as other astronomical phenomena, could have been designed and erected by a primitive civilization with no knowledge of the universe? I think that is a hard pill to swallow, especially when you consider the fact that we would have serious difficulty building some of these structures with today's technology.
So, if we can accept that the ancient civilizations that once inhabited this plane(t) were not clueless, primitive savages, we must then question whether their beliefs about the world being flat are as silly as we are led to believe. The concept of a heliocentric solar system, with the earth as a globe rotating around the sun, is a fairly new belief in terms of history. Flat Earthers claim that the architects of this theory and the pioneers that pushed it into the mainstream were all members of the secret society, the Freemasons.
The fact that all these men, each of whom played a huge part in the abolishment of the flat Earth paradigm, have either set squares or compasses in their portraits, is the main convincer for this argument. While the set square and the compass are the two key elements in the Freemason logo, and while the Freemasons are known for hiding secrets in plain sight, I don't feel that these portraits alone are proof that all of these men were in fact members of the Freemasons. I did find a few other portraits of Isaac Newton and Copernicus with rather suspicious looking hand gestures but, other than that, I was unable to find any definitive proof of their roles in the secret society.
It would be interesting to consider for a moment that this spherical Earth really was falsely incorporated into the minds of the populous by the Freemasons. It would be interesting because the globular model of the Earth has resulted in a explosion of Atheism, yet you are not even permitted to become a member of the Freemasons unless you believe in one true God; regardless of what name you call that God by. This would make it very difficult to ascertain why the Freemason's would be perpetuating a lie that hides God from plain sight, whilst simultaneously worshipping a God of their own.
If like me, a few portraits that could easily have been fabricated are not enough of a reason for you to distrust the globular Earth theory, then perhaps a look at NASA and the lesser known space agencies of the world will do a better a job of making you question the status-quo.
Though it proved difficult to gather sufficient evidence of Pythagoras', Kepler's, Newton's and Copernicus' roles in Freemasonry, it was not difficult at all to find connections between NASA and the Freemasons. There are a bewildering number of astronauts that are admitted Freemasons, even sporting the Freemason ring in many public appearances.
Buzz Aldrin Jr, Edgar Mitchell, Donn Eisele, Virgil Grissom, Walter Schirra Jr and Paul Weltz are examples of such astronauts. Curiously, Neil Armstrong, Allen Sheppard, William Pogue, Vance Brand and Anthony England all had fathers who were Freemasons too. This is information that you can find yourself rather easily. It also brings into question the veracity of the claims against the earlier pioneers of the heliocentric doctrine.
Putting the overwhelming connections between Freemasonry and NASA aside, we still have many a reason to distrust this government sponsored organisation. Even before my journey through the Flat Earth theory, I was already a firm believer that NASA had never gone to the moon. Anyone that has done any level of research on the subject would find that the moon landing was one of the most poorly executed hoaxes in history, with a multitude of production errors that made it beyond obvious the entire landing was a sham.
I won't touch on the many reasons why in this article as I know there are a million out there for you to find if you deem it necessary. But this is merely one example of NASA or an international space program being caught in a lie. From bubbles appearing in alleged space walks to harnesses snapping during supposed zero gravity demonstrations, there are literally thousands of instances of space programs getting caught red-handed whilst trying to deceive the public.
I find this video to be very interesting also. Some in the comments are arguing that the the mistake could have been a meaningless slip of the tongue, but as someone who has been playing poker since I was a child, I am convinced that the body language exhibited by Chris Cassidy after stating that they are filming from America, not space, is extremely telling. He looks to be in great discomfort, suggesting that he knows he made a serious mistake.
Another thing that makes it difficult to trust NASA is that a google search of the phrase "NASA satellite" returns nothing but blatant CGI images. Why are there no legitimate images of these satellites? It is also worth mentioning that the first proposal for a geo-stationary satellite was conceived in the mind of science-fiction write Arthur C. Clarke. Only 20 years after he wrote about satellites, they had reportedly become a reality. He too was a known high ranking member of the freemasons.
It is also suspicious that images of the Earth provided by NASA are mostly composites made in Photoshop. The sizes of the continents in relation to one another have changed dramatically over the decades. Images of Earth that are reported as legitimate photographs, always show an exact sphere. This is contradictory to the words of top level scientists such as Neil deGrass Tyson who claim that the Earth is an oblique spheroid which is slight pear-shaped.
The claim that the Earth is not a perfect sphere is rather new, and came as a result of flat Earthers claiming that the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's spin should alter the shape of the Earth or force all of the continents onto the hemisphere. I have yet to see images that support the latest claim of a pear shaped Earth.
One final thing I would like to share that is very interesting and can lead one to doubt the globular Earth theory, is a website known as flightradar24. If you visit this site and zoom out as far as possible, you will see that all planes are tracked when in the Northern-hemisphere. However, any aircraft that are in the Southern-hemisphere disappear from the map once they leave land, so that no flight path over the ocean can be seen. They then reappear once they are back above land.
I spent quite some time attempting to find a plausible explanation for this, but my efforts proved unsuccessful. Given that the tracking program is powered by GPS, which stands for Global Positioning System, there is no reason why an aircraft, that is still on the globe, should be untrackable once it is above an ocean in the Southern-hemisphere. Not unless they are hiding something-- though that doesn't necessarily mean it is a flat Earth that they are attempting to cover up.
When one has so many reasons to doubt the story they are being told, it is unsurprising that they then decide to adopt a differing belief structure. This explains why so many people have abandoned their faith in a heliocentric solar system and a round Earth, but it does not tell us why the go to theory is something that has been apparently proven false over 500 years ago.
I would now like to share some of the more convincing, or interesting aspects of the Flat Earth theory to demonstrate why so many have invested their belief in it, after which I will reveal some of the flaws that I have found within the Flat Earth model.
Flat Earth Persuasion
There are a number of aspects of the flat Earth model that, if examined with an open mind, can force one to reevaluate their current paradigm. Below are a few of the pieces of evidence presented by flat Earthers that I consider to be worthy of further investigation.
Flat Earth
There are several parts of the Earth where the ground is literally flat over huge distances. The Bolivian salt flats(pictured above) is one such location. For over 11,000 square km, the ground is so flat that when it rains and the ground is covered by a few cm of water, a beautiful mirror effect is created.
If the Earth is spherical in shape, then common sense will tell us that there would have to be some very, very steep parts of the world to compensate for such a sizeable portion of flatness. I'm unable to find such a location on the Earth, only more areas of complete flatness. I consider this to be something of interest when entertaining the possibility of a flat-planed Earth.
Occam's Razor
In simple terms, Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is more often the correct one than not. I think this is of great relevance to some aspects of the Flat Earth model.
We are taught that the Sun and the Moon appear to be the exact same size because the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, but also happens to be exactly 400 times further away. That's quite a coincidence. Occam's Razor would suggest that flat Earthers have it correct, and they appear the same size because they are the same size, and both occupy the sky right about our heads.
If none of us had ever been told of the Earth being round, then watching the stars move around the sky, whilst feeling no movement of the Earth, would tell us that the Earth is stationary and the stars rotate around us-- just as the flat Earth model suggests.
Occam's razor is betrayed once again by the official narrative. We are told that it is actually us that are moving. According to NASA, the Earth is spinning at 1,040 mph, whilst moving around the Sun at 66,666 miles per hour. The Sun is also apparently circling the Milky Way at 540,000 miles per hour, at the same time as the Milky Way moving around a local group of galaxies at 2,237,000 miles per hour.
With all this movement we see the same stars every night, in the same positions, but that is reportedly because we are so far away from those stars that our movement is rendered all but irrelevant. I can definitely understand why people would have difficulty believing this, when our senses tell us a completely different story.
Problems With Gravity
Forgetting the fact that gravity is still a theory which has multiple working formulas in existence, I have a personal problem with this supposed universal law that I have yet to encounter another person talking about. I may be overlooking something, or perhaps just lacking the necessary knowledge to make sense of it, so feel free to let me know in the comments if you have a scientific solution to the following conundrum.
If gravity is such a powerful force that it is able to hold entire oceans in place on the Earth, how am I able to stand up?
We know from many famous experiments, that when one drops two items of different masses from a great height, they arrive at the floor at the same time. It is only when one has a different surface area that air pressure can begin to take effect and alter the landing times.
This tells us that gravity, if it exists, effects every object with a uniform value of force, regardless of the mass of said object. So if the force of gravity applied to the Atlantic ocean is also being applied to me, I should be a pancake. I can't even begin to imagine the weight of the Atlantic ocean or the force needed to hold it onto a ball when that ball is upside down. But, I do know that if that same amount of force was pulling me down to the ground, I would not be able to stop myself from being flattened into the floor.
The only way in which this can make any sense to me, is if the force of gravity applied to an an object was relative to the mass of that object. But, as the aforementioned experiments revealed, we know that this is not the case, and that the same force is applied to everything.
Antarctica
Following an exploration of Antarctica in the 1950's, a treaty was signed by 12 countries in 1959. The purpose of the treaty is as follows;
The main purpose of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in Washington on December 1, 1959, is to ensure "in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."
Surely this treaty would be better served for a part of the world that people actually dwell in? I think this sounds awfully fishy, but you shall have to decide for yourself on that. Since 1959, a number of other countries have also signed what is now the longest standing treaty of any type in known history.
I would love to know what they are doing out there in the name of peace, but it is unlikely that I shall find out because access to Antarctica is extremely limited. While there are ways to travel there, and even a flight from Australia which is advertised as a direct flight over Antarctica, compared to the 14,000,000 km squared out there, very little of it is open to exploration due to research purposes.
Persistent Attempts To Discredit The Theory
Though I am not convinced the Earth is flat, one of the most powerful observations that lead me to consider it a possibility is the continuous attempts to discredit the theory. If there was nothing to the flat Earth, why do so many high-level politicians, businessmen and scientists feel the need to bring it up so often.
The subject is always spoken of in a way that persuades the listener to consider believers of the flat Earth to be crazy or unscientific, usually provoking a few laughs. It's strange to me that they seem to be making such an active effort to discredit the theory, as well as influence the people to laugh at flat Earthers. No one will ever want to be a flat Earther after seeing how they are insulted and humiliated, so they will avoid researching it for themselves based on the words of these prominent figures.
There is also an organisation considered to be controlled opposition known as The Flat Earth Society, who intentionally spread absurd information and theories relating to the flat Earth. The claims made by this group are always so ridiculous that to find them first when looking into the flat Earth theory, will ensure that you don't continue with your investigation.
Who is funding this organisation, and why would they need to if the Earth is round and flat Earthers are just a bunch of loony-bins?
Lies Upon Lies
I'm not sure about the flat Earth, but a lot of research has led me to believe that both climate change and evolution are intentional deceptions. I have previously considered that if the flat Earth is a reality, then both of these lies could have been conceived in order to perpetuate the bigger lie about our world.
These are some of the main factors that prevent me from dismissing the flat Earth theory entirely, but there are also many things that cast a serious doubt on the possibility of the Earth being flat.
Problems
The Stars
I searched extensively for an explanation of why, if the Earth is flat, would the stars in the Southern-hemisphere rotate in an opposite direction to those in the Northern-hemisphere. I did find a few theories attempting to explain how this could be a possible on a flat Earth model, but all of them fell short of convincing me.
The Moon
I have problems with the phases of the moon even in regards to the globular model, but when it comes to the flat Earth model, there is really nothing that I have found that can offer any sort of explanation. It seems the leading theory is one of a black sun, which is invisible until it covers the moon. I feel that is quite a claim and there will need to be a lot more evidence produced before I can consider it a viable explanation.
Convincing Footage
Some of Nasa's much later footage, including the 24 hour live stream from the ISS, is somewhat convincing to the say least.
But, considering the current technology, I can leave room in my mind for it to possibly be CGI. Especially when viewing advertisements such as this, that look awfully convincing also.
Should someone offer up a plausible explanation for these occurrences, I may end up a flat Earther myself, but for now I cannot ascribe to the theory whilst these elements remain unresolved.
Why Would They Lie?
One of the main questions people ask is, why would they lie about this? Personally I can only think of two reasons, and one of them seems a little silly.
The first reason is that it could all be about money. NASA currently receive $18.7 billion in tax dollars every year, which is a immense some of money. The European, Russian, Chinese and Iranian space agencies are also funded on our taxes.
You will find many a flat Earther claiming that this is the reason for the lie, though I cannot believe it. The lie is too big for it to be about something as simple as money. There are plenty other, simpler scams that they could have came up with in order to squeeze money from the people. We know this because they have done and are still doing this all over the world.
Also, the heliocentric system was proposed long before a space station was established, so I don't feel that this is a likely possibility for why one would lie about the shape of the Earth.
The other potential reason for such a deception is one that nobody wants to hear about, and I suspect the underlying reason for why so many people loathe to entertain the theory. If they are lying about the Earth being flat, then the only thing big enough to warrant such a lie is the existence of God, a creator.
If the Earth is truly a flat plane, and the stars revolve around us, then that would mean that we are a lot more special than the evolutionary and the big bang theory suggest. It would be hard to deny the existence of a supreme being and a creator if we knew that we were the very center of the world.
The fact that they teach the big bang and evolution to children as soon as they start school, even though they are both merely theories, does seem like an intentional effort to dissuade us from believing in God. My niece is only seven years old, and told me a few weeks ago that she is certain God doesn't exist. I felt the same at her age, and for a very long time after that too.
If you can convince people from a very young age that God does not exist, then it becomes incredibly difficult for them to think otherwise once they grow older, because it is a very large mistake to make. Who wants to admit to themself that they got arguable the most important thing wrong?
With no faith, there is no purpose, and it is much easier for us to accept a life of meaningless consumerism. I feel that this is a big enough reason for a deception as large as the flat Earth, and the potential freemasonic origins of the deception become a lot more relevant if this is the case.
I have come to believe that this is the reason why most people become angry when hearing about the flat Earth theory. Perhaps on some level they are aware that a flat Earth would mean a divine being, and after living a life of disbelief, a sudden realisation that there is a God could leave one lost, especially if they haven't a religion to ascribe themselves to.
I think what we need to realise is that the flat Earth theory is not going away until we can get some definitive answers. Not answers provided by scientists that we are just supposed to trust because we are told they know everything and we know nothing.
We need solid, definitive experiments that anyone can do to discern the truth. If we continue to be so quick to label those who believe in a flat Earth as crazy, and ridicule them instead of indulging in critical, open-minded debate, we will never achieve this.
It's no secret that the governments of this world are big on deceiving the people. It's unsurprising that so many people would choose to dismiss the official story and do their own research. I don't think this deserves ridicule. I think it deserves praise. We should always challenge what we are told, and be brave enough to question what we believe.
I think we could all benefit from leaving our emotions out of scientific discussions, and trying to understand why people believe what they believe, rather than whether what they believe is right or wrong. To write someone off as insane or unhinged because they hold a controversial belief in a word of controversy, is far more insane than possessing that controversial belief yourself.
I think you all know by now that I love a good debate, but if you are going to comment on this, I ask that you do so respectfully. I feel it likely that there will be some very conflicting views in the comments section, and this is an opportunity to learn, not an excuse to attack another human being.
At least two easy things should dissuade anyone.
First, that the stars in the southern hemisphere revolve at all. They should, in a flat Earth, pass from left to right (while looking south), but instead they revolve around a point, meaning that the Earth has two external axis of rotation, like a spinning ball. The reason they revolve, as you say, "the other direction", is from you reversing your point of view. They still go from East to West, but you are looking south, not north. This could only happen on a Sphere. A Secondary point is that someone in South America sees that point of revolution as directly south, and someone in South Africa sees it as directly south too, but they (on a flat earth) would be looking 30 degrees or so to the left. Instead they look towards the south central point of a globe.
Secondly, that Australia (for example), fills the right number of degrees of longitude, and is the right miles of length, east to west. On a flat Earth, it should either fill the known amount of degrees, and be much wider than measured, or it should be the length we can easily measure, but fill far fewer degrees than we can also measure. Instead it is the right size and fills the right number of degrees - that it would on a spheroid.
BTW, the oblate spheroid shape has been known for about a century. I learned it in grade school 50 years ago. But your mistake is in thinking it is literally pear shaped. The degree of oblateness is so small that it's not even visible except under careful electronic measurement. Tyson is a blatherer and exaggerates for Infotainment.
Another mistake I hope to correct is your bewilderment at Oceans not falling off the bottom of the earth. The mistake is in thinking there is a bottom. There is no significant gravity in any direction other than towards the center of the earth. There is no external "down" for the oceans to fall towards. Therefore the gravity of Earth is adequate to hold the oceans down in the same measure that it holds you down, since you are mostly water anyway.
Finally, people get mad at Flat Earth folks because, having explained, as I have done here, certain and demonstrable truths about a Spherical Earth, they will ignore that and switch to some other factoid. Then when that is explained, having learned nothing, they go back and try to make us explain the original mistake yet again. These are things you should have learned from about 4th to 12th grade, but the schools failed to give you a proper science education. It's not your fault, but it's irritating. I usually don't bother to respond (because it doesn't help), but you seem so honestly befuddled by it all. Hope this helps.
I'm with you on this. There is no viable explanation for this presented within the flat Earth theory. I find it to be one of, if not the most powerful piece of evidence for the heliocentric model, hence why I listed it in the problems category.
I disagree with this one as any level of proof. If the Earth is flat then the cartographers who worked to create a fraudulent map that represents a globe Earth would have obviously taken this into account. It's also a very difficult thing to measure yourself without immense resources. How are you going to personally measure Australia? Or any country for that matter. You could do so on Google maps, but that isn't the same as measuring it for real. That's just measuring yet another map.
I have never heard this before so thanks for sharing it.
I am not bewildered at all. I understand how we are told gravity works. I also recognise that take there isn't a bottom when factoring in gravity, but considering the context of which I mentioned this phrase was bringing into question the existence of gravity, upside down would be the correct terminology to utilise. I feel you may have missed the point. I know how gravity is supposed to work-- I believe everyone older than five years old does. But gravity is a theory that has multiple working equations because no one can seem to agree on how it works. Gravity only needs to exist in a solar system of spherical bodies. If the Earth is flat, gravity is a moot concept at best.
I am not sure if you are using the word you in a general term or if you are specifically referring to me, but if it is the latter, then you should really read my post again. I don't believe the Earth is flat and was not attempting to convince any one that it was. The point of my post was to demonstrate why I feel so many people do believe in it, and that doing so does not make them stupid or crazy. It merely shows they have looked at different evidence from what they were presented with in an official capacity, and as such, they have arrived at a different conclusion.
To imply that I, or anyone else did not receive a proper science education at school is as condescending as it is ironic. One cannot receive a proper science education at school in the modern world. Science involves experimenting and challenging current theories to come up with ones that are more accurate or, better yet, 100% provable. This is not what we have in public education anymore. We have evolutionary theory taught as if it is fact, with many syllabuses conveniently leaving the word theory out of the title. Do they invite criticism of the theory or proposals of a more accurate one? No they do not. In spite of the countless holes in evolutionary theory, if you question it at school, you are ridiculed and laughed at. If you question it in the scientific community, you are ridiculed and ostracized by your peers. It's the same with gravity, climate change and many others. This is not science. This is politics.
Having a proper education nowadays leaves one less likely to give credence to anything that contradicts what they were taught, regardless of the veracity of what is being proposed to them. I was expelled from school just before I turned 15, yet I was still permitted to sit my exams because the schools get more funding depending on how well the test scores of the pupils are, and it was expected that I would do very well. I missed almost two years of the syllabus, including science, which was at the time a personal favourite. In spite of this, I still received 2 A*'s in science, so please do not imply that I am stupid. I understand science very well. I just do not believe that what we are being taught in today's world is even slightly scientific.
I do thank you for your comment as I learned something, and I feel that your intent was pure in nature. However, the closing paragraph was incredibly ignorant and I think you ought to talk to a lot more flat Earthers before implying that they, and everyone else who doesn't instantly write off the theory, are lacking in education.
I will admit to have seen a couple of these videos myself because they do keep popping up recommended, and like yourself, out of intellectual honesty I had to entertain the idea.
I still am, I am more observant now, and if anything I think that may be the best thing about this flat earth youtube craze because I know at least I am paying more attention to my surroundings, I don't know if others are too.
I too have noticed flat earth is seen as our way into reform by many, flat earth is like our shame for having been so stupid, the poster child of stubbornness and ignorance. I noticed this image too, as well as the constant attempts to try to discredit it. It was people's attempts at trying to discredit that really raised an alert in me.
Surprisingly nothing would change either way for me, flat or round or even dome. Even if this whole thing was a hologram things still wouldn't change for me. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic god.
Could we share a creator that is putting us in the middle of a show? Maybe, but what does that change? Nothing for me, I already knew I was being lied to. For 15 years I thought there were planes in 911.
There's only one thing I want to know if it turns out this is no globe. I want to know why this particular lie. Maybe they are lying like this to sell us the idea of living in other planets (or heaven), so that we don't take care as much about this one.
I wasn't taught evolution in school growing up though, I was taught the Christian god created, I was taught globe earth was real. Humans having to do anything with monkeys is an idea worth laughing about, this was my biology teacher in high school. But not just that, an idea which opposing would cost your passing grade. It was as optional for me to say I didn't believe in a globe as it was for me to say I didn't believe in the Christian god in school, it wasn't, if I ever wanted to graduate. I think you story was a bit different in this respect, but I also know others can identify with mine.
Recently I read someone comment in one of those videos that there could possibly be more land than we are shown...I think that would be a great reason to lie, not that I'd support such crime.
All in all the big problem I'm having at the end is not about god, secret societies conspiring, us being lied to from birth systematically, etc. I just wonder about the people using satellite technology and what that really is. :P How is this signal bouncing if it is? I also wonder about all the people studying science and what they are really doing if they are not studying enough to miss this... This may be new though, maybe the idea of a globe earth is younger than we think.
Besides that I guess I see no reason why it couldn't have another shape that is not a globe, the only thing that keeps me wondering is how the moon looks like. It would seem, the way light reflects, that it is a sphere. If the moon is a globe then why wouldn't we be on one too being so close to each other?
I think it's childish to make fun of people who are trying to find the truth either way.
I love this phrase you just used, "intellectual honesty.". I have never heard this. Did you just coin it yourself? If so, I shall be stealing it. Lol.
I feel I can relate to your comment about paying closer attention once introduced to the flat Earth theory. I have since paid closer attention the sun, moon and stars and have seen some anomalies that contradict the globular model. I have also seen some very beautiful things, including a glowing blue sun, hiding through a tunnel of clouds. That is a phenomena I have never before seen and doubt I will again. I wonder if I would have caught that had it not been for me paying closer attention due to the flat Earth theory.
As for GPS satellites, it's an interesting issue. I suppose it could all be fake and really they are just using the telephone towers we see everywhere, and the huge wires that go across the oceans. It wouldn't have to mean that all these mobile phone companies were in on it. They could pay for a satellite and get service that appears to be a satellite, without knowing that the communication network they are making use of is really operating on cell-towers.
This is rather far-fetched, but so is a sci-fi author proposing a geo-stationary satellite in his writing, then it becoming a reality shortly after. Especially when that author was close friends with a number of fellow-freemason astronauts, and is in photos with them.
Another way that this could be achieved is if satellites truly are up there. This doesn't mean the Earth is round because satellites are above us. It just means that there is a satellites above us... It would mean that it isn't kept in the air by orbiting the Earth, but with the technology in existence nowadays, why should we not accept a possibility of satellites being held up there by other means?
I agree, high res images of the moon certainly look spherical, but I disagree that just because it looks sphere we should assume we are on a sphere. When you look at all the craters on the moon, however, it does appear as though many asteroids have hit it. I think the existence of an outer space with asteroids hitting the moon would debunk most models of the flat Earth, but we would need to see one hitting it for that to happen. Until we do, we do not know what caused the craters, or whether they even are craters.
I ask about satellite tech because I've worked for several of those companies and they teach you how their satellites work while on training. Could these machines be closer than we are told? Maybe. But to spend money in teaching employees the routes of your satellites makes no sense if you have no satellites moving, I think. You could just tell them the machines are stationary and to say every malfunction is related to weather and they wouldn't know any different.
Could it be that the author who proposed satellites was already aware of their existence because of who he had been hanging out with?
I don't know if I came up with Intellectual Honesty, but I've been using it for a while hoping it catches on :)
I've really enjoyed that aspect of it as well. I never knew how much fun it would be to have "proving the earth is round" as a hobby. :)
Hallo, how do you explain this (fellow danes) observations, that strongly suggest that the earth is a ball?
I can't. I'd say it's an excellent argument for the Earth being round.
An interesting demonstration. It is dependent on the optical power of the device used. No device can see infinitely, least of not our human eyes. The device used has it own limit. It is more powerful than the unaided human eye, but still struggles with its own vanishing point and perspective. It is rather clearly seen that as the distance to the tower increases, the tower image seen becomes less in focus / more fuzzy, demonstrating the limitation of that device being used. If one was to bring to bear a more powerful optical device than the one used, you would see the whole tower. Repeat the same experiment with a more powerful optical device, and you will get a different result.
The tower disappear below the horizon, its very clear.
The same thing happens with the ships on the water in the last video segment between 3m 57s through 4m 26s. This is the portion covered at 47.9 km away. Note that before the optical zoom of the camera lens is started, you do not see the ships at sea on the water, or the tower. They are all "below the horizon" as you say (because of perspective). Then, as the camera optical zoom is enabled, you suddenly see the ships not seen earlier and then finally the tower. The lens is not powerful enough to get to the bottom of the tower at this distance. That Canon model used claims a 65x optical zoom factor. Now, watch the zoom out process. As the lens backs out (i.e., reducing the optical zoom factor), first the tower disappears completely, and then so do all the ships. If there was ever a "curve", the camera would never be able to see "around the curve." Watch that portion of the video a few times, and then just think about it. There are countless similar demonstrations.
In my last thread, I suggested using a different (more powerful) device. For example, a Nikon Coolpix P900 has an 83x optical zoom, more than that Canon model. At the 47.9km distance, you would see differently.
Another angle. Let's assume the Earth is indeed round, and given its commonly accepted size and radius, the Earth's alleged curve can be calculated from this. There are many other sources. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
The rule - The rate of curvature is about 8 inches x miles squared distance away. So, even at the first measurement of the tower at 25 km (15.5 miles) away, if the Earth actually does curve, you would not be able to see the bottom (8 x 15.5 x15.5 / 12) 160 ft (nearly 49m) of the tower at 25 km away, but clearly, you do see it the full tower to its base.
Do some of your own real experimentation with different optical devices. That is the only way to believe, by doing it yourself. There are lots of great videos online for guidance.
There are also many people doing this with lasers as well, as another way to show there is no curvature.
I think the idea is not based in any real evidence and having heard some of them speaking I believe they are not true believers in a flat earth but are trying to make a point about how hysterical some people get over certain discussions. People shouldn't get angry even if they do think an attitude is crazy!
I know the types you speak of. There are quite a few trolls, and there are even those who seem to believe in the theory just as an excuse to feel special.
But, for every one of those, there is two more who truly believe. Who are spending money on amateur rockets and high powered lasers to conduct scientific experiments to find proof.
We certainly do need to learn to communicate without anger though, because if you go to one of these videos and have a look at the comments, it's all hatred. It's a sad sight.
Lol I used to be one of those trolls. I used to say the moon landings were faked just to annoy people!
Sorry, I hadn't noticed this. An explosion of discussion has resulted from this post and it's very difficult to keep up. I too have indulged in quite a bit of trolling in the past. It can be fun to wind people up over silly shit, and it can teach them that there are more important things in life to get upset about.
At least you had the truth on your side though, because I am not certain about much, but I'm certain they never went to the moon.
I'm pretty certain they did but it is silly that people come to blows over these kind of disagreements none of us will probably ever be 100% sure so falling out over this kind of stuff is ridiculous.
Yeah, it is a demonstration of maturity for us to be in disagreement of this but not trying to make one another feel stupid or insane.
I know that regardless of our conflicting views on this, we still agree on an awful lot and I know there is value in reading your work and maintaining a line of communication,
Go have a look at some of the other comments on this post and you will get, in my opinion, a very great example of the opposite. It's as if people are actively attempting to ensure that I never speak to them again, simply because they disagree with people I also disagree with but can relate to in some ways. LOL. Aren't we quite a species.
This is the best thought out and presented post I've ever seen on Steemit. And so are the comments.
Although I think the flat earth theory is wrong, reading this discussion has made me pay attention to a range of related issues.
Seeing the mention of the moon landing hoax, reminds me how rare it is to see anyone point out this blatantly obvious con-job that still seems to be widely believed.
Personally, I'm a reasonably open minded conspiracy theorist with a degree in geography who lives in the southern hemisphere and has flown around the planet.
I think the earth is a sphere that travels in an elliptical orbit around the sun (and it's not often I agree with the "official" story!)
And I think that almost all the flat earth stuff is designed to make "conspiracy theorists" look bad, and discredit other people calling out fakes like the moon landings or "climate change", by attempting to be associated with them.
But reading this post has made me see the appeal of the flat earth theory, which previously I was pretty dismissive of. Although I think it's bollocks, it's raises more good points than I realised.
This post has had ** a lot** of comments, but this is by far my favourite. This was essentially why I made the post and it's great to see that it was able to help someone understand another point of view that they previously were unable to.
I see a lot of flat Earth debate and within a couple of comments things get so heated that no one gets a chance to truly understand where the other person is coming from-- as demonstrated in this post by debates I was in, even though I am not a flat Earther.
While I do lean towards the Earth being round, more so than it being flat, I don't think it is a theory meant to discredit the truther community, because having looked into I have found that the theory has always been there over the centuries,
It may have gotten more traction recently due to Eric Dubai, but it has always been there even before he came along. I don't know what to think about it, but I shall follow it casually to see how it progresses.
I showed this amateur video of a sunset on the ocean to a friend who had embraced the flat earth concept, and he had to change his model.
In flat earth talk, it's often said that a distant ship doesn't go behind the curve, and that if we would "zoom in" we would only see it getting smaller.
Here's a video camera zoomed in on the sun, showing the actual curvature-- not getting smaller to the eye. (Flat Earth videos will often show the sun from places like Alaska, giving a deceptive angle, this video shows a spherical Earth, and defies the flat earth models that I've seen):
This is a beautiful image and I think you for sharing it. I have not been lucky enough to see a sun set quite so dramatic with my own eyes, but it seems to be quite a humbling experience.
I do not, however, think that it necessarily shows curvature.
This is the working model of the flat Earth that I have come to know.
This implies that the sun disappears over the horizon not because it drops physically below it per se, but because of perspective. I had a problem with this at first, because I initially thought that this should mean that the Sun should get smaller before it disappears.
The problem is, I came across a video which speaks of how excessive humidity in the air can change this. Water molecules dilate the light source in the distance making it appear much larger than it is, which is something I have since paid close attention to and noticed to be factual.
This is the best example I could find to demonstrate what I mean, but perhaps the Sun does not get smaller on a humid day because the moisture in the air is dilating the light?
It seems there is at least two answers, both scientific, for just about everything. This is probably why after centuries, the flat Earth theory has still not died.
Smaller or not, the sun drops behind the horizon in these ocean sunset videos. The flat earth model shown above doesn't allow for that observable data, so it cannot be a correct model.
Regarding a couple of your questions.
As far as I understand it, most satellites aren't made by NASA, but by companies (for telecomm for ex,) usually manufactured by other companies like Lockheed or Boeing. So if you changed your search parameters from "NASA satellite" to "NASA releasing satellites," or "Lockheed Satellites," you get better image results. (There are still many cartoons though.)
Regarding the strength of gravity and your question about (y)our ability to stand despite gravity being strong enough to create oceans upside-down. So firstly, (and of course I mean this politely,) there is no upside-down in space. Gravity doesn't pull you "down" per se, rather it pulls any two masses together, relative to their mass/distance. This is why both the water of our oceans has collected, and why the material of our earth itself has collected. You raise the issue of density, which is why rock is "above" (now) liquid metal, water is "above" rock, and atmosphere is "above" water. Gravity compared to the other 3 forces is the weakest. (Others are electromagnetism, as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces.) This explains why when I pull apart two objects who are barely connected by anything but gravity, like a book and a table, I get little if any usable energy, (I can drop the book back down to release a sound and a touch of heat.) Whereas when we split just a few hundred nuclei of even the lightest atoms (held together by strong and weak nuclear force,) we get massive amounts of usable or G-d forbid, destructive energy. This is also why all it takes for you to stand up without oozing into the earth, is just a light, mostly calcium skeletal system, and a few muscles. Notice also that when you suddenly experience multiple G's, like in a car, plane, or even just when you jump up and down, your weight becomes significantly more burdensome. This of course is because we primarily function within a specific range of G's, as in, we we're designed/evolved to operate in a range of say -2 to +2 G's. (Before technology and roller coasters^^)
Does this reply to the aspect of the question you meant?
My brain is no longer working well enough to make sense of these words. I am far too tired and have been looking at a screen for over 12 hours today trying to write this post up and respond to comments, which has led my head and my eyes to ache.
I shall give this a read tomorrow morning once I have my wits about me, at which point I will offer you a response worthy of your time. Night-
Understandable, no worries^^ I appreciate the reply.
And I think others have said most of what I said, so you'll probably have already responded to the ideas elsewhere... Gnite!
There was one thing mentioned elsewhere, but I answered you anyway.
Yes, I did this and they still appear to be fake, I think it's even more suspicious that NASA don't make their own satellites, but source it out to a private company in spite of having some of the best engineers and scientists working for them..
I know this. At least, I know there is no upside down in space, if there is a space, and if gravity exists. This is really an issue with semantics. I used the words upside down because I was bringing gravity into question within the context.
I believe this is yet another issue of semantics. I said down, because the larger mass( the Earth) that as the higher gravitational force is below us-- down.
I can't argue your point about the immense energy released through nuclear energy. I just don't feel that it offers any explanation as to how gravity effects me differently from how it effects the ocean, so I'm not sure where you're going with this...
NASA doesn't make most satellites 'cause most satellites are corporate. It's really not suspicious. NASA gets paid to launch them. Additionally, NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, and several others have been basically inseparable for decades. So one company does part of a satellite, and another does what they specialize in.
I appreciate that the use of the word down might only have a semantic difference for you, and that's ok since you understand the difference, but others may not.
The point about the immense energy of the nuclear weak/strong forces that I was trying to make, was to show the difference between the amount of energy holding together the nuclei of just a few atoms (or released whey they are "pulled" apart through fission,) vs. the fact that you are able to stand against gravity with just a few muscles, ie, you can stand despite being "pulled" towards every single atom on earth. In your post, you implied that gravity was very strong, when in fact it's the weakest of the 4 physical forces. So from the example I gave, the amount of energy released when dropping a book onto a table of trillions of atom, is far less, than what's available when releasing the energy of a few atoms in a nuclear reactor...
Sorry if this was not helpful...
I understand you now.
Let me explain why I believe that gravity must be an immensely powerful force. According to NASA videos, we have seen that without gravity, objects simply float around.
The weight of an ocean, I am just guessing here, but is surely at least a few billion tons. Gravity must be consistently pulling down (towards the centre of the Earth) on that ocean to prevent it from simply rising with the wind and with water displacement from sea life. The water would just be floating around in the air above us before long if it was not for gravity.
So how much force does it take to pull down an ocean and keep in position on the Earth? I would imagine A LOT.
Was I was saying is that if this same force was applied to me, I would be flattened into the floor.
Many in other comments have spoken of how gravity is relative to the mass of an object, and I know this to be what is taught. However, I am not entirely convinced this is the case. That is all I was stating.
It would be a pointless endeavor to attempt to prove me otherwise though, because I understand the scientific reasoning presented behind relative forces applied to objects depending on their mass. I just think that there are interpretations of the results of the experiments that led to this conclusion, that are not being explored by mainstream science.
Essentially, I'm questioning the existence of gravity as a whole. Whilst that may seem crazy to a lot of people, I am simply hesitant to place absolute trust in a theory that no one has been able to conclusively explain or measure. There are a lot of working equations for gravity. Perhaps when there is one that everyone can agree on, I too will agree on it and stop looking for a better answer.
You said a lot so I'll just pick a few if that's cool.
Scientists haven't stopped looking for a better answer, they are constantly refining towards the better answer. There are loads of ongoing experiments.
You say "if this same force was applied to me, I would be flattened..." But the same force is being applied to you, except you have muscles and far less mass. You could ask the same question about the FE theory statement that says we are travelling "upwards" at 9.8 m/s2. Why aren't you flattened?
"We have seen that without gravity, objects simply float around." There is really no such thing as "without gravity." Everything is affected by the mass of everything else relative to each body's mass and distance from the next. What you see on the ISS are objects "falling" inside a vessel, travelling at about 18,000 mph, in effect, also "falling," towards earth in a spiral shape. You can partially feel this in an elevator if you jump as the elevator begins to descend, or you will feel heavy when it stops for the opposite effect.
What I am saying is that after a century of refining a theory and still not being able to perfect it, the science community should be willing to accept proposals of new theories. But they don't, because science has become politics. I was just reading something a moment ago on how climate change has finally been exposed as a hoax, or at least a major scientific institution where many other institutions get their data, has been busted manipulating data to support climate change. This is exactly what I mean. Over the past decade so many scientists have spoken out about their disbelief in clime change, and none of those fuckers have a job anymore. Science isn't science anymore. It is politics and what they want us to believe has nothing to do with what what the truth is.
You are still not understanding me based on this sentence, and I do not know how better to explain it without drawing a picture, so best we just forget this issue.
My experience with looking into the flat Earth theory has revealed that this fact you speak of is something that the Flat Earth Society put forth. The Flat Earth community recognise The Flat Earth Society as controlled opposition, meaning that they intentionally say stupid, unbelievable shit in order to discredit the theory. No genuine flat Earther that I have ever spoken to adheres to this theory. They have all maintained that the Earth is 100% stationary, and that the stars move around the Earth in the firmament, as stated in the Torah or Bible.
You're not even willing to accept a possibility that gravity might not be true are you... I'm willing to accept that gravity could definitely be a thing. I'm just not certain of it. But, if you can only speak from a perspective of certainty, then I'm not sure it is possible for us to have a very productive conversation on this matter.
You get an upvote because you're a friend, but the Earth is still round. NASA may be part of a conspiracy, but not this one!
I was just about to write the same - but then I saw you @richq11 so I thought I'd stop and say ditto - Upvoted for the sheer amount of effort, good, pacey writing and presentation. And NASA are liars, I'm sure. But I'm just not convinced (or clever enough to get all the arguments).
I didn't say the Earth was flat....
But thanks. Lol.