Have you asked yourself why, exactly, anyone would be interested in creating a conspiracy that the earth was round if it wasn't?

Surely you haven't seen a curved horizon with your own eyes

You bet your ass I have, and so have thousands of other non-NASA-affiliated individuals. It was visible to the naked eye from the Concorde.

And it's not like it would take a lot of effort to gather proof firsthand. A weatherballoon and a gopro camera is all you would need.

But i guess making videos on youtube would be more fruitful.

You mean like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc

Litterally this. If you watch this video and pause at a point when the go-pro's lense isn't interfeiring and creating 'curves' you can visibly see a flat horizon, while at other parts of the video the horizon is both concave and convex. If you use this as proof of a round earth you are ignoring at least four minutes of footage when this go-pro's lense creates an illusion of a concave earth.

Also, I have seen many horizons in my life from both dozens of meters high and from sea level and I can safely conclude that the horizon never curves. The horizon stays at eye level, and it is extremely flat, and it surrounds you like a pencil surrounding the 'point' of a compass. When viewing the horizon, it never shows any signs of curvature. If you look at a horizon which ends twenty odd miles away, the buildings in the far distance are always completely straight, never leaning and curving away as they should on a ball earth. I have never in all my years seen any signs of curvature anywhere on a horizon; not even high up in a plane.

You realize the reason why the horizon line looks flat is because of the curvature of the earth right?

If the earth was flat, you would literally be able to see night time on the horizon.

Not to mention that a flat planet is literally impossible because all matter in space wants to be round because it requires the least amount of energy to maintain.

Not to mention the seasons. You realize it's winter in the southern hemisphere while it's summer in the northern hemisphere right?

For example Australias winter is in June.

Impossible on a flat planet.

A weatherballoon and a gopro camera is all you would need.

says /u/Herax, a frequent contributor to /r/conspiratard who loves video games and any space mythology.

Directly out of the OP:

• All amateur attempts to reach as high an altitude as possible show a flat horizon at heights NASA material shows curvature.

Condemnation prior to investigation is the height of ignorance.

Here is your sign: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Can I ask you a question

It is possible to obtain a GPS signal pretty much anywhere in the world. According to your theory, repeater towers must be used.

Therefore you are contending that there are relatively dense (given the range of these towers) networks of towers in all of the most remote places in the world. This in includes the tundra of Greenland and Northern Canada, Northern Russia and in every ocean.

How are these towers maintained? Who maintains them? Why aren't arctic pilots reporting seeing hundreds of cell phone towers that are not mapped? Why aren't ships reporting these? How are the PTB covering this up with potential millions of witnesses? Why bother implementing GPS and satellites in the first place if this is the level you need to go to to fake their existence?

[deleted]

I would say you are 100% correct but Michelson-Morley was a flawed experiment. Consider for instance that it was obviously incapable of even ascertaining the existence of the Heliosphere. The solar system is immersed in an aether of charged particles, plasmas, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and a vast infinite electron plasma field. The Michelson-Morley failed to detect the aether because it was a flawed design with flawed assumptions about the nature of the aether. Modern space age measurements have proven the aether probably does exist. Pre-Space Age experiments are crap.

[deleted]

Nonsense. The premise is completely flawed and designed for an electrically neutral environment which doesn't exist. If the Michelson Morley experiment had been based on accurate assumptions then it would have been able to detect the Heliospheric Current Sheet, the Heliomagnetic Field, and the Solar Electron Flux. It detected nothing because it was designed by individuals who didn't know what to look for.

The simple fact of the matter is that MM was flawed to begin with. It 's designers did not understand the nature of the interstellar medium, they did not understand the motion of the solar system, nor did they understand the properties of the supposed aether that they were trying to detect. Advocates of the Interstellar Vaccum Theory have been proven conclusively wrong for over 70 years since the first probes were sent into space. MM can't even detect the relative motion of the Earth with Solar Mgnetosphere. It's the same type of 19th century garbage that still leads idiots to believe in hairbrain nonsense like Doppler Spectral Redshift and Big Bang Creationism.

[deleted]

I actually aced high school physics and then went on to get a bachelor's in the field. So, since you consider yourself an expert on the matter, perhaps you can explain the failure to detect a vacuum in space.

The only thing this proves is that basic and simplified HS physics is the only training you have.

[deleted]

You didn't ask anything first. I asked you first and you ignored my question. MM is flawed for many reasons, but I imagine the easiest one for you to understand is that it assumes the Earth is separate from the Aether, when in fact, by its very nature the aether would be entangled to begin with. Regardless, there are countless peer reviewed articles on aether studies. Furthermore, you would have to be able to untangle the aether from the Earth in order for MM to work, a physical impossibility given the definition of the Aether. Now, I am not claiming the aether exists or doesn't exist. I am merely stating the short comings in MM at even being able to address the problem. The simple fact of the matter is that the aether's existence is implied by the failure to detect an interstellar vacuum at even nano scales. Regardless, since you're an obvious uneducated and uninformed troll with a sadly mistaken and misplaced superiority complex, I will be happy to put you in your place. Of course, a pointless exercise as you will deny any evidence to the contrary of your debunked paradigm which is as ridiculous and stupid as this flat earth nonsense.

So let's begin again:

1. What is the Electron density of the interstellar medium?

2. What is the density of quarks and gluons of the interstellar medium?

3. In what manner does the Earth dis-Entangle itself from the aether so that it can be measured in relation to it?

4. Why did MM fail to detect the Heliomagnetosphere or Helioplasmasphere in which we know the Earth is embedded?

Your anti-aether paradigm only goes to prove why Nikola Tesla is the superior scientist of the 20th century. There are plenty of fact filled books on scientific aether models at Apeiron here: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm

I don't waste my time with creationists who don't read books.

[deleted]

Of course I win, your knowledge of physics doesn't extend past a 9th grade public education and is steeped in creationist nonsense and filtered through religious propaganda. Sad part is, you don't even know it.

Imagine that we embedded the Earth in a three-dimensional Euclidean space. The question of the Aether is whether or not that space is filled or empty. Even the most basic space age observations prove that space is not a vacuum. The Earth is embedded in an ocean of subatomic particles and electron plasma which completely and totally envelopes the Earth. It is a proven fact. It is also embedded in a Neutrino field, which would be an aether if we wanted to call it such.

[deleted]

MM is promoted as part of a creationist paradigm which has no basis in sound physical science. No one in the modern physics community, except for amateurs would argue MM as a valid test of the Aether. It's scope is so limited as to be pathetic.

[deleted]

It's absolutely impossible to understand modern physics and still believe MM is a valid experiment for detection of an aether.

Mmm, down votes.

A question that always gets me hammered, but not answered:

How can the sun accelerate and decelerate to follow the proposed flat earth path? According to flat earth theory, the winter sun has a greater "central" radius, but the summer sun has a smaller one. What energy slows or accelerates the sun to ensure a 24hr cycle throughout the year?

As for rocketry being less effective in space: opposing friction will also be less, and so will gravity.

I really don't know how to answer it and it may be that you are correct. This is not my field, but to be honest, I don't think flat earth theory is incompatible with the PTB narrative, it corresponds with the sentiment that we are random pieces of accident destined for oblivion. I don't believe that at all.

Questions like these scare them away..

They cannot provide a model for the flat Earth. Heliocentrism may indeed be a flawed theory, but at least they give you a model.

Flat Earthers cannot give you a model because there are fundamental problems with their theory as well.

There is a model that solves everything beautifully, including some of the valid issues that OP raised, but nobody is actually interested in that.

Because hollow earth is more ridiculous than flat earth.

As I mentioned, people aren't actually interested in the truth, but I'm curious, why do you think that it is ridiculous?

Because it requires actually changing all known, tested, observed laws of physics in order to create a model of the world that for all intents and purposes cannot exist using current data. The irony is that people whole believe in this suggest things such as variable light speed, poke holes in experiments that are hundreds of years old, and have little to no understanding of the science behind much of the phenomena. When literally every single piece of scientific data forms a cohesive picture that really kind of illustrates one general set of model of the universe, then it isn't that these scientists aren't creative or thinking outside of the box but that you're wrong in your understanding of the world. Yes, education makes the largest difference which is why you won't find any serious scientist entertaining the thought - it's not that they can't believe it but that it's not worth the time.

I mean, have you ever considered that you were made out of pennies? It's the same line of thinking, it supplants all we know with outrageous claims that are intellectually dishonest.

Because it requires actually changing all known, tested, observed laws of physics in order to create a model of the world that for all intents and purposes cannot exist using current data.

This is not true. No laws of physics need to be changed - the only thing that is required is the understanding that light bends upwards, but that is easily tested and understood within the existing framework of physics.

The irony is that people whole believe in this suggest things such as variable light speed,

The speed of light is demonstrably variable

poke holes in experiments that are hundreds of years old

Can you be any more specific?

and have little to no understanding of the science behind much of the phenomena.

Are you sure you aren't referring to yourself here? Just kidding! But maybe don't be such a dick.

When literally every single piece of scientific data forms a cohesive picture that really kind of illustrates one general set of model of the universe

Are you sure about this? Heliocentric theory is relatively recent in it's acceptance and popularity, you seem to be just assuming that the consensus view is correct, probably because you've been told that it is your entire life and never bothered to question it yourself.

then it isn't that these scientists aren't creative or thinking outside of the box but that you're wrong in your understanding of the world.

Scientists are people, and they have a long, long history of being very, very wrong on incredibly important issues. You shouldn't take their unanimity and certainty as any kind of evidence.

Yes, education makes the largest difference which is why you won't find any serious scientist entertaining the thought - it's not that they can't believe it but that it's not worth the time.

If you say so - I'd argue that the scientific community has a clear and long track record of stamping out any dissent or questioning of established scientific dogma.

I mean, have you ever considered that you were made out of pennies? It's the same line of thinking, it supplants all we know with outrageous claims that are intellectually dishonest.

Well, that would be pretty easy to test, wouldn't it? Copper and nickel have fairly consistent and measurable qualities, so if your penny theory were true it would be fairly straightforward to prove or refute.

I guess I was hoping that you had an actual, specific objection to the actual theory, but as you are clearly not well acquainted with it and have no interest in becoming so, it doesn't look like our conversation will bear much fruit.

Ships disappearing beyond the like of horizon. Explain that.

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/dec/13/borge-ousland-how-i-crossed-antarctica

This dude crossed Antarctica. Does that mean he is part of the conspiracy?

According to these loons half the world must be conspiring against the other half :)

If he was actually at the South Pole, which if existed would be a magnetic phenomena, he could have included actual evidence of that.

Instead, the first picture presented matches the pattern of "hidden in plain sight": it's a mirrored sphere, the UN's south pole monument. Given that the other two pictures included both present religious symbolism, yes, he's most likely in on it, and his descriptions of his adventures match that. Can't you tell when someone is weaving a tale?

Yes, I can see you are weaving a tale

What kind of evidence?

magnetic phenomena

You can't just drop that without explaining what you mean, never mind the fact that the earth emits a small electromagnetic field. All of the math surrounding and governing our understanding of the magnetosphere requires that earth takes on that exact shape, a sphere. Either Maxwell's equations are wrong and you can explain the phenomena using some unknown mathematics or the churning of an molten iron dynamo takes on a sphere shape and creates the earth's electromagnetic field.

Do you understand the principles by which a compass works?

Do you understand that the churning of a molten bolus is responsible for electromagnetism on the earth?

I'm going to guess that the math is far beyond your understanding but just in case it isn't, our current understanding of it and the earth's production of it requires the earth to be a sphere (well, spheroid). Explain to me how flat earth deals with this.

EDIT: And on that note, please demonstrate how every single mathematical model that uses of spherical coordinates in relation to the earth seem to always work. I want to see an actual proof for how high precision satellite communications happen (using spherical and orbital mechanics as calculations) if the earth is flat. I'm going to guess you cannot because, well, you can't.

There is no independently reproducible evidence of any of the claims of a 'core' or 'spinning liquids', these are part of the spherical hoax.

I'm going to guess that the math is far beyond your understanding

You've ignored every single thing I've already posted in the OP, and here you demonstrate your nature.

Explain to me how flat earth deals with this.

The invitation of "debate me about everything right here right now in comment form while I passively respond and simultaneously don't look into anything on my own" is a common shill tactic.

So, this worldwide organization that measures the electromagnetic phenomena of the earth is just one giant conspiracy?

What about the fact that the structure of the earth has been empirically determined using data from earthquakes and is freely available for you to analyze yourself?

I see you cannot respond to it because, as I surmised, you lack the education to adequately refute my statements. You just keep linking to self-referencing sites and youtube videos rather than a logical set of proofs and data. Show me the math and I will convert. Cool beans, flat earth shill.

There are good theories out there, but this just isn't one of them...

It's interesting, and I have entertained it before.

5 of my biggest issues with it:

1. Why is every celestial body round and the earth is just flat?
2. Why do physicists, rocket scientists, etc. agree that the earth is round and use this information to conduct real world tests?
3. Why do objects appear over the horizon at long distances? This is an observation hundreds of years old and can be made by anyone.
4. Why cover it up? What do we lose in believing the earth is round?
5. Our current understanding of gravity is completely wrong, which ties with #1 and #2, if the earth is flat.

Aristotle's quote should finish with: "Likewise, it is the mark of an ignoramous to entertain a 'nonsensical' thought and then believe it to be reality"

Like entertaining the thought that snowflakes are not actually frozen water, but tears from a giant creature in the sky. We just....legitimately know that it isn't the case. To believe that with how much we know about thr nature of the world is ridiculous.

Trust me, I really gave flat earth a shot. It took a lot of effort to try and forget everything I've been told and seen. It just doesn't make sense, simple observation and experience disproves it.

I can actually answer this...kinda.

From my understanding and reading of these posts; it is not necessarily that the earth is flat, but more that it is not round.

The big argument flat-earthers tote around is that you dont feel the earth moving and constellations revolve around the north star. plus every experiment to measure the motion of the earth tends to come up inconclusive...so it's not necessarily the earth is flat; its more...its not round.

To go through these questions.

1) Im not gonna say in my opinion, cause i don't know what to think, but i am going to reference ancient civilizations that all say the earth is a floating disc (not flat). Hindu Cosmology does a good job at explaining it. the "earth" is still a globe...like imagine a snowglobe but round. the land and waters are flat with a dome atmosphere above and below. the "filament."

The proposed system is more geo-helio centric where the planets orbit the sun; but the sun and the moon orbit the earth. imagine a spinning ying yang as a representation of the sun and the moon orbiting around the center of the earth with the constellations and planets above. that is then encased in essentially matter that we call the Oort Cloud and that is our system... and there are infinite number of these. The big bang happens, the universe spreads out and eventually fades away and 8.64 billion years later there is another big bang, another brahma born from vishnu and its an endless cycle.... I am digressing

Why the conspiracy, why cover it up.... this has taken me a while to come to answer with. And the answer comes from the ancient civilizations....with the current model: we are organisms on a rock orbiting a fireball tucked away in some part of the universe. insignificant, far away, nothing in the vastness of space. there is no center of the earth, just a round ball.

Now a lot of ancient civilizations will say that at the center of the earth.... there is something special... the tree of life, eden, mt. meru, mt. sinai, mt. olympus....always a special tree or a special mountain depending on which religion you are going with. Here is the conspiracy (don the tin foil hat)... the north pole, is the center. at the north pole, which apparently we can't fly over or access is eden/mt. meru/the center. Earth is the center of the universe, everything revolves around us...well everything in our system. we are the focal point.

When you look at it this way, we become a lot more special and more significant then just monkeys on a rock.

[deleted]

I don't know... if we arn't moving then we shouldn't feel anything...which we don't.

The whole point of the theory is that there is no axis of rotation, everything revolves around us. not us rotating... so if everything is spinning around polaris and it stays stationary.. this would make sense: https://www.google.com/search?q=star+exposure&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TrCeVaW7BsjQoAT357SwBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

and for the pendulum.... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za52.htm

just ctrl+f pendulum and read up

Constant motion isn't something any living being will ever feel. What you feel is acceleration. When in constant motion you'll feel stopped. It's the same reason driving on the highway doesn't slam you into the seat the entire time. The lack of basic common sense in these theories is astounding. This science is so incredibly basic that children verify it for science fairs.

[deleted]

Constant motion isn't something any living being will ever feel. What you feel is acceleration.

If the ball Earth is spinning at 1000mph and revolving around the Sun at 67,000mph, the solar system is spiraling around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000mph, while the galaxy shoots away from a Big Bang creationary explosion at the beginning of time at 670,000,000mph, how do I not feel any acceleration at all?

Because the strongest, closest force to you is a constant 9.8m/s. Your point here seems to boil down to "look how big these numbers are though!"

Instead, experiments like Michelson-Morley, which attempt to measure the speed of the rotation of the Earth given a constant speed of light, show that there is no motion, and the heliocentrists are forced to bluster away about 'aether', ignoring the results.

Nobody is talking about aether in modern times. New conspiracy theory: you're from 2 centuries in the past! Of course that experiment didn't work by the way. Their entire premise is wrong. The speed of light isn't constant.

I think you need to look up the difference between velocity and acceleration.

LOL. There is a big difference between velocity and acceleration.

Michelson-Morley had nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth but was trying to find the rotation of a "luminiferous aether." Tell me, why didn't Michelson or Morley argue that their experiment proved a non-rotating Earth?

[deleted]

What sense would you use to feel the earth's rotation? There's no friction, so there wouldn't be vibration to touch. You've got your sight, which you can actually use to feel the earth's rotation, albeit you'd have to pay very close attention There are literally thousands of videos illustrating this.

The reason those pictures don't make sense to you is because you're not considering the frame of reference. If you were standing at the equator directly up looking up, they'd indeed be streaks across the sky. Most of those pictures are looking towards one of the poles, so they seem to be turning in a circle. In fact because the earth is round is the very reason you're able to see those circles. If the earth were a flat disk spinning on its edge like a coin, the horizon would always obscure the axis of the rotation. Because it's round, you pretty much always have a view of the axis of the earth's rotation.

There's your inner ear, but that's only sensitive to sudden acceleration or deceleration. The earth has been spinning at roughly the same rate for millions of years.

So how would you be able to feel it?

5 of my biggest issues with it:

Wait. I'm not claiming to have all the answers; are you making some god of the gaps argument?

Do you have a response to anything presented in the OP? The observations presented disprove a heliocentrist globe model; being able to disprove a hoax doesn't grant omniscience.

There are literally hundreds of satellites orbiting the earth right now, do you deny that?

If you don't, how, exactly, would they stay in orbit if the earth was flat?

If you do, how do millions of satellite TV subscribers get perfect quality television signals despite having directional antennas pointed directly into the southern sky at an elevation far higher than any terrestrial antenna could possibly be? How do you explain the fact that you can see satellites with a telescope, and the ISS with the naked eye?

how do you explain Eratosthenes's experiment, easily repeatable today and indeed has been repeated thousands of times with the same result? What about the moon's orbit? What about the fact that there are tens of thousands of people who have circumnavigated the earth? Are they all con artists involved in the world's most complicated, convoluted, largest and most impressive conspiracy, perpetuated for no reason at all?

You can't be serious with this shit

There are literally hundreds of satellites orbiting the earth right now, do you deny that?

/u/Rentun, the answer to this question is in the OP. Please read it if you would like a serious response from me.

I read it, it's just wrong

this is, I'm assuming, fake?

These as well?

Is this guy a shill?

I apologize, but I'm not claiming to have all of the answers. I don't have to respond to everything presented in the OP other than flat earth theory in general, which is what it supports. Some people could just comment "this is stupid" and not contribute anything at all.

I know just enough to share my opinion on something I don't see good reasons to believe is true and why.

I don't have to respond to everything presented in the OP other than flat earth theory in general

Here you go, for the audience, proof from /u/blacy0520 that this topic attracts those who condemn without investigation.

Of course you would not be able to understand any of the claims you think are connected with "flat earth theory in general", because you haven't actually looked at them and are responding to stereotypes in your own head.

I know just enough to share my opinion on something I don't see good reasons to believe is true and why.

"I haven't looked at this, but there's nothing to see here!"

This is typical. I have given this theory time and investigation, and to be honest I got halfway through your post before commenting, I didn't read the entire thing. I saw you had a lot of information, some of which I've already seen.

The content in this post and in others have not convinced me of flat earth theory holding up.

Has it convinced you of globe earth theory?

At this point, believing in a flat earth is akin to religion.

edit: haha oh shit, the irony. I didn't even notice the Aristotle quote. That is so rich.

Quick question, if you own a yacht or a large boat why not just go to the edge of the world and take some photos to prove it?

Your question would be answered if you read the post. Why does this topic attract so many who want to argue about it while refusing to even look at it?

Condemnation without investigation is the epitome of ignorance.

How come I can see a ship sail over the horizon?

It doesn't sail 'over' the horizon but into it; if you pulled out a telescope just as you are claiming the 'curvature' occludes the ship, you'll be able to see the entire ship just fine.

You may want to rethink your answers before you send them..

I've seen that video and responded to it before. Thanks for linking it, the audience should look at the massive amount of comments on that video, and ask themselves which side is making honest arguments concerned with the truth, and which side is full of mockery, dismissal, and trust in the government.

You 'say' you have responded to it, and yet here you are in a thread on the very topic.

Respond to it or one would conclude your lying.

from my understanding and in relation to the video. if at 12:45, or once the ship was below the horizon. if a telescope was taken out and peered through, the ship would be level again.

This video doesnt show that...sooo this conversation is moot.

Basically to answer your original question about it sailing over the horizon, if you use a telescope so you can see farther than the naked eye; it would still be level.

u/high-priest-of-slack though passionate about this has a temper problem.

Dude, be nicer. Just explain that there is an ice ring around the the sea and the military wont allow you to get there.

[deleted]

'East' is a term that describes a magnetic position relative to the North Pole; traveling 'straight' east will eventually return you to where you are, if you've looked at any Flat Earth map.

I'm confused on why I can see the moon and the sun at the same time on some days.

Well when that happens, it's simply that the moon and sun are both within your field of vision on the earth. I'm going to assume you are asking about the sphere earth theory (as that's the only one which really makes sense). Imagine if you will a ball. Then on the surface of that ball you place a semi-sphere with its flat face tangent to the ball's surface. Now expand that semi-sphere out infinitely. That semi-sphere is your field of view. Anything within this region will be visible given that they are not obstructed. For you to see the moon at the same time as the sun, all that needs to happen is that both are within this space.

If the sun is setting or rising on one horizon and the moon is on the other horizon, then the moon will be nearly full as you have direct line of sight to the entire illuminated half of the moon.

If both are high in the sky then all you will see is a crescent. As the sun is farther than the moon, yet both are in the same general direction, that means that the other side of the moon is getting illuminated more than the side with line of sight to you.

And you can see it during the day because the moon doesn't just "turn off". It's always there shinning, unless its within earth's shadow (called a new moon). Same with the Stars. The reason we see them less during the day is because the gas and water particles in the atmosphere interact with light that hits it, scattering the light in all directions. Blue light is more easily scattered so that's why the sky is blue. If any celestial object is brighter than this scattering then you can see it during the day. Venus and the moon are the most common examples of this, but Mercury and rarely Sirius can also be seen at certain times of day.

I'm going to assume you are asking about the sphere earth theory

I was asking about the flat earth theory. You shouldn't assume things. I don't need you to tell me why the sky is blue. You also got some of your facts mixed up.

It's always there shinning, unless its within earth's shadow (called a new moon).

That's called a lunar eclipse. A new moon happens when the moon and sun are at the same point on the horizon. If they line up perfectly it's a solar eclipse.

Oh yes you're right about the new moon. My mistake. I always get that one mixed up with lunar eclipse. How did you expect an answer though if people can't assume as you didn't specify in your question? Yes the thread is about flat earth theory but half the comments are about round earth.

I asked it to draw attention to a glaring flaw in the flat earth theory, and the context I was using should be obvious given the context of the post.

Do you have a model of how the stars are mapped on a flat earth? You raise some perfectly valid criticisms of heliocentric theory and globular theory, but without a model you are just poking holes in existing theories and aren't providing any evidence for a flat earth.

For example, I can use this software to see a complete and accurate map of the stars:

http://www.google.com/sky/

http://www.stellarium.org/

Can you point out any flaws or inaccuracies in the mapping of the stars, which sailors have been using to navigate successfully for hundreds of years? Can you model the stars on a flat earth geometry? If not, don't you have to acknowledge that the spherical geometry of the stars is irrefutable, and thus your flat earth theory is invalid?

You've provided a very good primer on the problems with heliocentric and globular theory, but you have very little evidence supporting your proposed replacement model. You cannot even model the geometry of the heavens, which the globe-heads can at least do, and your azimuthal projection map is hilariously inaccurate, with continents in the southern hemisphere appearing ridiculously bloated versus the north. Without a working model, I think you should be a little more skeptical of and a little less devoted to your personal pet replacement theory - otherwise you are not much better than the globalists you malign.

Hello /u/TrofimLysenko, I'm glad you're not trying to derail the topic this time, but it looks like you didn't read the post that carefully.

Can you point out any flaws or inaccuracies in the mapping of the stars, which sailors have been using to navigate successfully for hundreds of years?

Directly out of the OP:

Sailors navigate by plane sailing, mathematically assuming a Flat Earth to compute their heading.

The fact that sailors across the world can navigate by Polaris and end up in the same place is not possible on a spinning, tilting, and wobbling globe. The fact that sailors across the world can see Polaris as far as 23.5 degrees south latitude is not possible on a spinning, tilting, and wobbling globe. The fact that the same constellations are visible in the same patterns to be guides for sailors for thousands of years is not possible on a spinning tilting wobbling globe flying through an outer space of flying balls.

Can you model the stars on a flat earth geometry?

Just look at them. There's your model: we have been able to accurately predict the eclipses for thousands of years, because we used to look at the stars a lot more than we do today.

Ok so no model of the stars, got it, and you didn't refute the incredible inaccuracy of the Azimuthal projection map, so I assume you agree that no accurate models exist of a flat earth.

Your link is to another Reddit post (by you) with no further links but rather a quote from a book that you seem to be infatuated with, that doesn't provide evidence for anything, model anything or predict anything, but merely makes a claim about trigonometry.

Your model of flat-earth stars is to "just look at them"? Are you serious? What about my question, is there any flaw with the spherical models of the stars that I posted, and if not, how could it possibly work on a flat plane?

You are ignoring the hard questions that point out the flaws in your theory, just as the globalists ignore the hard questions that point out the flaws in theirs. You are no better than them - possibly worse, since I suspect you are fully aware of the actual geometry of our universe, but for some reason seem to be on a mission to lead people down the wrong path. I continue to wonder why that is.

possibly worse, since I suspect you are fully aware of the actual geometry of our universe

Which is..?

Concave spherical. I'd love to elaborate, but OP gets pretty cranky when people point out flaws in his theories and propose more plausible alternatives.

Here is a model if you are genuinely curious.

Thanks for your interest!

Here is a model if you are genuinely curious.

Thanks, I am. Never hurts to look into a different perspective.

I disagree - I think looking at different perspectives can be incredibly painful, if only emotionally. Learning that something fundamental that you have believed your entire life is not true can be shattering, not just about the shape of the earth but about anything. I think that is why people can have such a strong negative emotional reaction to new information.

That being said - here is an incredibly brief background on Teed and his theory:

THE HOLLOW EARTH: A MADDENING THEORY THAT CAN'T BE DISPROVED - From OMNI Magazine (October 1983), Games section (p. 128)

It's only painful if you let it be. How can information be painful? It's just information. What you do with it or don't do with it is where the pain comes in and all of that is entirely on you.

Learning you've been lied to sucks but then the obvious follow up is, "Why'd you let yourself be lied to? Why'd you let others do your thinking for you?" It's empowering taking control of your mind and thoughts and realizing that hey, my entire conception of the world has been altered but I'm still here and I'm not going anywhere.

That link you posted is weird because it's clearly someone attempting to smear him and his theory - wouldn't a better background of it come from someone who's writing with a less obvious negative agenda?

I agree with you that exploring new information can be empowering for those who are willing to change their previously held beliefs. For those who are not, new information can be a threat.

There aren't many concave earth proponents - looking at the "arguments" of the detractors is a good way to start looking at the topic. Simanek is another "skeptic" who attempts to refute Teed's Rectilineator experiment but in my opinion fails miserably, and in his failure actually makes a compelling case for the veracity of the experiment.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

The best resource for "pro"-concave information is probably Wild Heretic:

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

And of course Steven Christopher makes an incredibly compelling case for concave Earth, if not his own divinity, on his YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFoxStevie

Again thanks for your interest, I'd be interested in your thoughts if you do take a deep dive into the material. Unlike OP, I am open to arguments against the concave earth theory, I simply have not encountered anything that would cause me to believe that heliocentrism or flat earth "theory" are better models, with the many problems pointed out by OP (and many others) with regards to heliocentricity, and the problems that I have repeatedly pointed out with flat earth theory (southern pole star rotation, flight times in the southern hemisphere, lack of a cohesive model, etc.) which have never been addressed by OP or anyone else.

Cool thanks for the resources, I've bookmarked them and will take a closer look when I have at least a few hours to dedicate to the subject.

You are most welcome internet friend. Thank you for the conversation, and please feel free to PM me if you have any questions or objections.

https://youtu.be/XH86yBK-ZsY no idea why it starts at the 12 minute mark.

it looks at flat earth theory from an ancient belief perspective... more however with hindu cosmology.

I believe this video (though pretty poorly made) covers the star map

Ah, Mr. Eric Do-buy-my-book. I didn't see anything in that video (or any of his other videos) that even begins to model how the stars could work on a flat plane, just lots of vague speculation and appeal to ancient superstition. Flat Earthers cannot account for the axis of rotation around the southern pole stars (Sigma Octantis, Southern Cross, etc.) This is why flat Earthers cannot produce a working model of the stars, and cannot explain why models like Stellarium or Google Sky can produce an accurate map of the heavens at any time and location on (in) Earth.

Heliocentrism is bullshit but so is Flat Earth. Only one other option, I'm afraid...

Why do I fly over the ocean from Sydney to Santiago, instead of over North America which would be the shortest route according to your map. Why does it take longer (about 15 hours) to fly from Sydney to LA than it does from Sydney to Santiago (about 14 hours), according to your map it should be half.

Because the earth is a sphere and OP is facing serious denial.

If the earth is just a flat plain and not a sphere, how thick is it and is there edges?

Im so confused. Why the fuck does this matter. it has zero effect on my life. Ehy talk about this when there are legit conspiracies in politics and corporate america.

What do you think is a 'legit conspiracy' /u/melomaverick? Your post history is focused on fashion and video games, and I wonder what even brought you to browse /r/conspiracy/new.

Not only has the government lied to you but you now have proof in your pocket to fight it. It changes your perspective completely when you really get it. You are no longer some tiny ant crawling on a remote dust speck in an infinite mess of stars and planets. The sun, moon, and stars rotate around you. Since day one, you have been told you are a piece of shit nobody, a nothing to adhere to rules like a good robot. No, you are the reason for this place. This is incredibly empowering when you really grasp it.

It will also let you know very quickly who you are dealing with when it comes to truth. If they talk satellites, galaxies, globe etc. you know they are either ignorant or putting forth the NWO agenda willingly or not.

When you have your entire worldview built of lies on top of lies, is it any wonder people are so confused, lost, and easily controlled? Is it really surprising everyone thinks everyone else is really stupid?

Everyone is hurt by this mental slavery, and everyone can see that things aren't right. Even the childrens' movies that we create nowadays paint a picture of a dystopian world where everything is just wrong. It's the most common theme nowadays, a worldwide depression of the human spirit, and I believe your life and all of our lives would change if we opened our hearts and minds to truth. As long as we instead choose to cling to comforting illusions, illusions will be all that we have to comfort ourselves.

You could prove this nonsense easily by photographing the edge of the flat earth. I'm waiting.

What you've just proven to everyone, /u/destinypallooker, is that you didn't read the OP, condemning that which you didn't even investigate, the height of ignorance.

You should stick to your video games and movies.

You can buy a ticket to Antarctica. Not to mention the other cardinal directions. And this better be trolling. I expect better from a subgenius. Okay back to my movies and vidya.

Surely you haven't seen a curved horizon with your own eyes

Actually did.

Also, if every flat-earth supporter on this sub donated a couple dollars, I think they could easily attach a goPro to one of those weather balloons and do the experiment themselves.

You can find a lot of videos of people who already did that on youtube, but of course there is always the possibility that they are working for NASA (/s), so why dont you guys do it yourselves?

What about all the video of the south celestial pole? Why do we see stars orbiting around it as well? also, you can see the curve on Ky Michaelson's amateur rocket video, the highest ever by an amateur at 73.1 miles.

GPS base stations are receivers, as stated in your own linked article, LOL.

Please provide evidence for your claim about Foucault Pendulums.

Slack is a shill who's here to make /r/conspiracy look bad and hide the truth from the masses

I find it kind of interesting how many downvotes and negative comments every single flat earth post gets. Almost like there's a group of people refreshing the new queue constantly waiting for one to appear.

And a lot of these users rarely if ever post to /r/conspiracy and are very hostile. Makes one think...

Yes, certainly these posts get hammered very hard by downvotes, but it's difficult to know why. There appear to be a number of genuine posters who believe that the topic only exists to discredit this sub (which I think is a very narrow view since the topic has obviously exploded beyond reddit), or conspiracy theories in general. So it's hard to know if the downvotes come from people who believe that narrative or people paid to suppress the issue.

I think it is interesting to observe how forums function in relation to an issue, but in the end it is better to look at the issue itself to figure out the truth. I also don't like playing the "who do you trust" game. When you do that you are saying "I am not capable of understanding this issue so I need to find someone I can trust because they will tell me the truth." Certainly we should listen to the views of people who have spent time on a subject, but we should not accept them unquestioningly. Exercising our own ability to reason is the greatest freedom we have, but so many of us give it up willingly because we doubt our own abilities.

This wasn't aimed at you Ambiguously_Ironic, more a commentary on how people approach issues in general.

Exercising our own ability to reason is the greatest freedom we have, but so many of us give it up willingly because we doubt our own abilities.

I think it has a lot to do with laziness too. People would rather be told what to think than actually think themselves. Most people I know can't sit in silence for five minutes without turning on the TV or getting anxious, and that's a huge problem.

Because they have no place here. Most of us believe that flat earth pays have gained traction here as an attempt to discredit this sub. It's a lot easier to ignore someone who speaks of conspiracy theories when you can lump them into a ridiculous group. Ex: "oh you're a conspiracy theorist. So you believe the CIA killed JFK, 9/11 was am inside job, and the earth is flat!"

People are less likely to listen when you present arguments that have been scientifically debunked for thousands of years. They'll just think you're a 'crazy, tin foil hat wearing nutter'.

If you don't like the posts just ignore them, simple as that. It seems like every time the topic is mentioned there's a group of randoms in the thread who've never posted to the sub before shitting on the OP, the incredible level of hostility is weird to me. And I wouldn't really worry about what someone thinks who says because you believe one thing you automatically believe another. You can't let people like that dictate what you think or prevent you from keeping an open mind.

People are less likely to listen when you present arguments that have been scientifically debunked for thousands of years.

Well, this is wrong. The geo-heliocentric model wasn't widely accepted until well into the 17th century.

Look up who discovered retrograde motion. That's when we began to believe we weren't the center of the universe.

And I don't care what people think of me. It's the fact that people are less willing to hear you out if they can associate you with a group of people they feel are extremely ignorant. If less people listen, less change will occur. This sub is to shed light on wrongdoings in the world. This covers mass murders, subjugation of entire peoples, mass financial theft, etc. It's not a place to just post a scientific theory that has been debunked for an exorbitant amount of time, call it a conspiracy, then criticize anyone who disagrees. Hell, if you pay attention to these posts, you'll notice the FE pushers don't respond to arguments that disprove their theory. They just call you close minded and a sheep and call it a day. Seriously, search Flat Earth in this sub and look at the threads with hundreds of comments. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Maybe that's when a few people began to believe/think/suspect we weren't the center of the universe but the fact remains that this idea wasn't widely accepted until the 17th century. I wasn't trying to argue, just saying it isn't accurate to say it's been "scientifically debunked for thousands of years". Many would argue that it still hasn't been scientifically debunked today.

I'm not taking a position on flat Earth either way, I think there are problems with it but also some with the heliocentric model. But I do find it strange how these users who've never visited the sub before magically find every flat earth post and downvote it minutes after it's created. These users do the same things you're talking about, attack the OP himself or the idea of flat Earth generally and how absurd it is instead of discussing the specific claims.

I'll say that I wouldn't be surprised to find that what we all think we know about the planet and the nature of reality is totally wrong, it's been happening over and over again for thousands of years. I think it's really arrogant that modern science assumes it has most of the answers even though the ideas and equations it bases these assumptions on are almost exclusively theoretical.

Maybe that's when a few people began to believe/think/suspect we weren't the center of the universe but the fact remains that this idea wasn't widely accepted until the 17th century.

You seem interested in the history of this debate, so you may enjoy a book called "Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians." It's not actually true that everyone used to believe in the flat earth thing, and it wasn't just "a few people" who understood that the earth was round.

The supposition that most people believed the earth was flat is thought to have come from Protestant organizations smearing/discrediting the Catholic Church and painting them as an enemy of science. In reality if we look closely, there's no evidence that the flat earth thing was widely believed by anybody, and plentiful evidence to the contrary. Basically, the Protestants started this rumor - "HOO BOY THE CATHOLICS ARE SO DUMB THAT THEY HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVING THE EARTH IS FLAT, DURR HURR HURR." And it caught on!

Couple examples of how we can trace the round-earth knowledge throughout the centuries:

1) The orb used in plentiful Christian iconography, including during the coronation of England's monarchs, is a globe surmounted by a cross, intended to symbolize God's dominion over the world. It's called the globus cruciger. Notably it's an orb, not a pancake. It's been in use since the 5th century - if nobody believed the earth was round, why were they representing the world as a sphere?

2) When Columbus proposed his journey to the New World, he had some opposition. Specifically, one of his critics used Ptolemy's measurements of the globe to argue that circumference of the earth was too big to allow Columbus to travel successfully. It's very specific in this criticism. Again, why would the presupposition be that the earth had a circumference unless it was popularly known to be round?

Lastly, I hypothesize that the only reason flat earth posts get downvoted and argued with is...well, because people in the conspiracy community like to be perceived as intelligent and reasonable insofar as that's possible, and being associated with stuff like flat earth suggests that we are all pants-on-head lunatics.

My point wasn't that everyone believed or disbelieved the earth was flat until the 17th century but that there was no consensus. There wasn't one model near-universally accepted as true like there is today, children weren't taught only this one model in school growing up.

I was also speaking not just about flatness/roundness of the Earth but with our model of the solar system and universe, heliocentric vs. geocentric vs. the many other models of the past. These were also fiercely debated for hundreds of years until Copernicus and (perhaps more importantly) Galileo came along in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I will check out that book though, thanks for the recommendation.

It's been in use since the 5th century - if nobody believed the earth was round, why were they representing the world as a sphere?

I'm sure many did but many also believed that the Earth, whether round or flat, was the center of the known universe at that time too.

Again, why would the presupposition be that the earth had a circumference unless it was popularly known to be round?

A 2-dimensional flat circle has circumference also.

But I don't mean to argue these points too much, I don't actually think the earth is flat - I just think it's dangerous to assume we have all of the answers when it's been shown for thousands of years, over and over again, that we don't. People are way to quick to just accept what they were told growing up by perceived authority figures.

The amount of people who discuss this by simply repeating what others say while adding nothing of their own is very telling.

I find it very interesting that this obvious forgery account

Is taking shots at FE when I have very recently expressed my own interest in this theory.

Wow, what is the character difference?

You may want to rethink your answers before you send them..

Oh yes you're right about the new moon. My mistake. I always get that one mixed up with lunar eclipse. How did you expect an answer though if people can't assume as you didn't specify in your question? Yes the thread is about flat earth theory but half the comments are about round earth.