yes the social perspective of life changes. For one we all have the idea that we could get off this "planet" one day. Going to mars, etc, setting up habitats. Which is fairy tales, but could make people less likely to respect the earth we have.

Just like thinking you came from space dust does cause people to act more carelessly. If we were told that we don't know alot of things for sure and God is a big and very real possibility. I certainly believe people would behave differently. Not necessarily less crime but less government power and less military spending. Things would be different if we were told it was a flat earth. But that is just one part of it.

The other part of lying about the shape of the earth is now we have an agency that gets money for covert experiments and research. While they do nothing but produce CGI and get paid to develop robots they hope will take over the world. Look it up, nasa is in bed with google who owns robot companies. something dynamics can't remember off the top of my head.

So the social aspect of flat earth is not the whole story all though I think it is significant.

lying about flat earth is about stealing our money and controlling the outer ring of our earthly plane. which is Antarctica, which NASA controls. Also don't overlook the possibility that more land exists past Antarctica, since we can't go there.. how will we know?

On one hand if I consider the earth is flat and there is some sort of untold beauty beyond Antarctica I would want to be the first to go and see. Yet under the same premise whats beyond may just be so horrifying that I wish I never went..

Also I see your point on the value of the environment being a significant social reaction to the sphere model, but it seems like more a overall reaction to technocracy than it is to the individual(s). I'd say we should have more belief in ourselves and each individual man to be as conscious as possible, and perhaps our experience of technology as a species is part of the ride

As far as NASA and evil corporations I yield to the fact that there is way too many people and too much materialism in the world. But ultimately I think most of these problems are centered around the conflict of self. Knowledge of self could be the key difference to change our modern perspective on technology so that it isn't robots taking over the world in the same way a hammer can be conceived and valued as a tool instead of a weapon

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] Top Mind believes the earth being flat would lead to a lower crime rate, unlike the current situation where NASA is making terminators for world domination.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

What's the explanation for me being able to prove the earth is a sphere using 3 trees and geometry?

Can you demonstrate? I'm pretty ignorant on the topic and want to see the proof for future use

Modern mainstream science takes the complete reductivist attitude. Everything is reduced down to cold and impersonal happenstance. The entire universe is taught as being a cold, hostile place. You are taught to feel alone and afraid and vulnerable. You are a insiginicant being floating on a rock through cold, empty, vast space.

Flat earth is about scienfic truth and realizing the world as the realm that was created with intent and meaning. Nothing happens by coincidence. This realm is the work of the supreme creator. For something to exist it must be created. And warmth and sympathy are inherent to creation. A full acknowledgment and appreciation of the creation brings lovr and drives away all fear.

TIL science is wrong when its not egocentric.

I feel like this just confirms the creationist philosophy associated with flat earth.

It does, who set up the magical dome that we live on in this theory? Who is controlling the "spotlight" sun and moon?

That the world was created is a logical conclusion. It is unreasonable to think otherwise.

Why?

Why do think?

Complex systems beyond your understanding and comprehension, which build themselves and reproduce themselves require a creative intelligence underlying it. If not then what drives it and what directs it?

Is it reasonable to think life appeared by pure accident? It's an absurdity to conclude that things all jumble together into coherent systems without creative input.

So where did the "creative intelligence" come from? Using your logic, it is "absurd" to think that some "creative intelligence" just randomly came into existence, right?

I don't have the answers for where creative intelligence originates from.

It doesn't change the logical conclusion that there is a creative intelligence guiding the mechanisms of life and nature.

It doesn't change the logical conclusion that there is a creative intelligence guiding the mechanisms of life and nature.

Yes it does. The foundation of your argument is "something cannot exist without being created by something," which is paradoxical, and thus illogical.

I dont have an answer for the origins of being. This does not invalidate the argument that there is a creative intelligence guiding nature.

I dont have an answer for the origins of being. This does not invalidate the argument that there is a creative intelligence guiding nature.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other.

1. A creation exists. 2. A creator created it. where is the contradiction?

I'm done arguing with someone who is incapable of performing simple logic.

you want the answer to "who created the Creator". My guess is it's a circle. the beginning and the ending.

You don't understand the inherent flaw in your logic, that's pretty clear.

You are saying that in order for something to exist, it must be created. That is circular logic, because it implies that the "creator" must have been created, so you get an infinite stream of creators.

So, if you are comfortable with an infinite time scale, why not just accept that "reality" has always existed, without a creator? The "creator" theory is just a shoehorned extra step that is irrelevant.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand logic, to be honest. It's probably why you are a creationist.

I am comfortable with an infinite time scale. Time only exists in the mind.

There is now only. It is infinite and contains all that is.

the creator is not an "extra, irrelevant step". There is no effect without cause. logic.

we are all an an effect of some first cause.

so you area creationist who doesn't believe in time? wowza.

have a nice life my dude.

Of course, you probably know where I'm going with this, but still..

So the whole, "you can't create something from nothing, everything MUST have come from something, therefore creationism" falls apart almost instantly upon deeper examination.

If everything must be created, you have two options, and both of which are just eternal existence of something. Maybe you think the "creator" is eternal, or maybe you think there is an infinite line of creators stretching back in time ad infinitum.

But I would counter by saying, if you are comfortable with the idea that something has always existed, what is illogical about the idea that the "always existing something" is the multiverse itself, or in other words, reality itself.

Time only exists in the mind. There is only now. without time then we arrive at the conclusion that everything has always existed.

but who created the creator?

I wouldn't claim to have the answer.

When did the universe begin? Did it have a beginning?

Flat earth is about scienfic truth

HAHAHAHAHAAHA

I don't believe in FE, but I like the thought experiment of questioning your own reality. It's definitely made me taken an appreciation to studying astronomy. It's fun looking up in the sky and being able to point out Venus and Mars.

Perhaps it's projected on a very complicated surface, but it just makes more sense to me that the stars are spinning with Earth's rotations.

Unfortunately, none of this explains why the only one side of the moon's surface faces us.

I love astronomy too but if FE is real then astronomy class was all a waste sadly

Your class might have been a waste, but historically the scientific progress of astronomy gave the sailing industry a huge boost -- especially when clocks made it possible to discover your longitude position.

Most public education classes in science are a waste. Because they taught false ideas.

What do you mean? I took lots of science AP classes, where I learned about things like... calculus, physics, biology, statistics. The things I learned are demonstrably accurate.

Why would the shape of earth change space at all? I'm not a FEer but I enjoy kicking around different theories. It always gets me how people think FE has to somehow delete the entire universe/multiverse.

Flat, oblate spheroid, disc, taurus, honeycomb, or motherboard earth...they all need to exist somewhere right?

Try to envision looking towards the center of our universe when you look towards the sky. (http://i.imgur.com/KbZtvyg.jpg)

Report back how you fare ;)

Im probably preaching to the choir, but for FE to be legit, it has to have better explanitory and predictive powers than Gravity. It has to explain more accurately a wider range of seemlingly unrelated phenomena , better than Gravity can. It has to explain nor only rain, earthquakes, convection, star and planet formation, sand dune formations. It has to falsify Newton and Einstien, and present mathmatical and empirical proofs that prove them wrong.

Relative density. If something weighs more than the air around it, it will fall to the ground. It really is that simple. Heavy things fall because they weigh more than air, not because some unexplainable force pulls things towards the ground.

Can you please explain how things weigh more or less without gravity? Do you know what the concept of weight refers to?

I just did.

An object's density is relative to its weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUoPTwhImdU Maybe you'll learn something

The like/dislike ratio on that video speaks for itself, lol.

This is basic physics that is taught in high schools and colleges alike, the dislikes come from flat earthers who don't understand physics.

Relative density is basic physics and doesn't need some magical force to explain why heavy things fall to the ground.

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the truth. Gravity is absolutely up for debate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69081.0 Okay, maybe this will clear it up.

Unfortunately, somebody's rant on the internet doesn't clear things up for me. There's too many questions left unanswered - the whole gravity debate is but a small detail of a very complex argument for the world being flat.

So, hypothetically, let's say the guy in the video is right. Great, gravity exists, but how the hell does that debunk the entire FE theory? It doesn't because it's such an insignificant aspect of the argument being put forth. An argument the guy in the video doesn't even attempt to address, yet titles his video as flat Earth debunked.

It does exactly debunk the flat earth theory because objects with large gravity like the earth and other observable planets tend to form a ball because they collapse on themselves so that the force of gravity is balanced. But seriously, why don't you go to some physics forums or some place with people who have thoroughly studied physics, or just go take some physics course, or buy a physics book. There is no reason for the earth to be flat because we can observe that all the other planets are also round.

And can you even comprehend the size of this conspiracy? It would be absolutely enormous, it would mean that whole space travel is FAKE, all the launches that are done by MULTIPLE countries, all space programs, all satellites that engineers build, multiple companies who invest in satellites. You can also study astronomy and other space related sciences, these would also be fake. It's just simply impossible for this theory to be true. Why do you think no actual educated person has debunked the globe and got a nobel prize? Why are all the physicists "ballers"? Why is the flat earth theory mainly used by poorly educated or religious people who don't understand things like gravity?

Seriously, go and pm someone who actually knows about physics, tell him what you think gravity is and ask him to explain why you aren't right. I'm not that good in physics, the flatearthsociety link I linked you covers it pretty well.

Seriously, go and pm someone who actually knows about physics, tell him what you think gravity is and ask him to explain why you aren't right. I'm not that good in physics, the flatearthsociety link I linked you covers it pretty well.

Haha, that is an absolute gem.

English isn't my native language. I meant to ask he\she why they would consider your explanation for gravity wrong.

Your English is actually very good and I understood you clearly. Sorry, I'm stoned and silly things make me laugh sometimes.

The point is there is much, much more to the FE theory than a physics argument about gravity, therfore you cannot debunk the entire theory with just this one aspect of the argument.

Germ theory...explains a huge range of seemingly unrelated events and explains everything as a single principle to such accuracy it can predict the future...... Germ theory explains Decay, disease, fermentation, carbonation, septic infections, rabies, birth defects.

Gravity Theory is the same, this is what gives it such a level of certianty, the PREDICTABLE effects of gravity that explains HUGE amount of unrelated events.......its like that last bit of information that suddenly fits everything together in a extreme concise way...allowing extremly accurate future predictions.

FE offers nothing in this context.

Think in terms of buoyancy rather than gravity. Air is also a liquid no? It takes the shape of its container. It's scientifically classified as both. So why suddenly do we need a different term and formula for it? Objects fall due to density, not because the center of the earth pulls at 9.8m/s. Just use the formula for bouyancy and ignore the gravity bullshit. Take the density of the air just like you would in an experiment with (distilled) water. Why make it more complicated than the truth? Sink/float

To say that flat earth don't understand physics is like saying round earthers are experts in physics.

Ok heres your Nobel peace prize, but unfortunately comes with the "Galileos Zombie Curse" ..dont worry ,just dont let him near the vacuum cleaner

...You can't say something has weight and then deny that gravity exists. Weight is literally defined by gravity.

This comment shows you have almost no understanding of physics or the natural world.

Einstein has been proven false. He was a fraud. He stole relativity from another scientist. his photo electric effect theory is wrong, both in obserbation and explanation. His explanation of magnetism is wrong. Look up the Faraday Paradox.

The theory of gravity is used as a tool to support round earth. How convenient that this mysterious force is not understood at all nor is it explained.

Lol i guess just an unexplained mystery then why heavier things dont fall faster and Gravitional theory is so successful at predicting future motion.

I made a case for explaining why would anyone hide the fact that the Earth is flat and not round, and make such a vast conspiracy. Like the other poster said , I like to question reality and am not FE myself.But, here it is:

If I'd have to pick one reason, that would be that the flat earth theory would need a 'masterplan' clutch to support it , thus strenghtening the belief in the existence of some 'God'. The round earth would then be used by TPTB or the Devil , utilizing scientists to make up and further support with multiple advanced theories, as the tool to distance people from that so called God.

It could be doable, think about how much years have passed since burning of Giordano Bruno for his cosmological theories , deemed as 'heresy'. It was in 1600. They had 417 years to make up the whole system of belief called Cosmology.

But, it would be the conspiracy so widespread, and with so many people supporting it, that I find it hard to believe in.

On the other hand, a lot of people (including scientists) just want to 'fit in'. They would probably be ostracised and deemed 'crazy conspiracy theorist / mad scientist' , if they would question the theory , and more importantly , the existing proofs for mainstream cosmos science.

You got it backwards. Science celebrates being proven wrong. Progress is made thru the falsification of hypothesis. Scientific progress is 99% falsified hypothesis The heros are the one who can falsify previous assumptions thru experimentation and measurment and prediction. Imagine you a scientist, spending 20 years doing an exsperiment attempting to prove a hypothesis true. The data comes back, its been falsified..is this a scientific fail? NO, its still considered a sucsess by both sides. Why? Because it removes a little more noise and static from the Big Picture, also it redirects scientific investigational energies towards the next untested hypothesis.

I sincerely hope that this is the case.

Science and its culture has been demonized since the atomic age, the "mad scientist" ..American culture values youth and beauty over academics and learning and has invented a false dicotomy that naturalistic science= unromantic unpoetic unemotional cold views of the universe.... Its a false narrative invented by culture, (except its true that most genuis scientists have retarded social/public skills and its difficult to write songs about loving gravity). Paraphrasing Feynman, An artist looks at a rose and sees poetic beauty about falling im love, while a scientist looks at a rose and sees the whole history of the universe and epic tales of ancestral survival and billions of years of drama surviving long enough to have sex

Flat Earth theory should not be condoned. This is a ridiculous notion that is often used to discredit real world theories that challange the narratives that have be propagated against the people.

Remember in the eyes of most, conspiracy theorist is a negative label.

You have to give credit to The Powers That Be (TPTB). When someone challenges the given narrative, they are labeled "conspiracy theorist", which in our society is just as bad as being called crazy. This isn't a recent phenomenon. Before modern governments, when religion had more control of societies (and still are in some regions) if you question the narrative you would be labelled a blasphemer or heretic. Discrediting dissenters in this fashion, not only helps to quell resistance, it also marginizing the individuals as "crazies" in the eyes of society and allows the Established powers to control most of the masses. Since humans are such social animals, instinctually, a lot of people will instantly reject ideas and influences that are not "accepted" narrative, even if they agree with the anti-narratives, because they are afraid to be seen as conspiracy pariah.

Listen, since I am on this sub, I too love the fantasy and mental playground that can be found with "fringe" theories (i.e., ancient aliens, hollow earth, simulation theory, etc...), but the truth is that we are in serious times and serious questions need to be asked to find the scary answers. For those of us that are red-pilled, we cannot be distracted or give TPTB ammo to discredit the truths we may help to uncover.

I find it hilarious that FEers always come here and never post in /r/askscience.

Seriously, go and pm someone who actually knows about physics, tell him what you think gravity is and ask him to explain why you aren't right. I'm not that good in physics, the flatearthsociety link I linked you covers it pretty well.

Haha, that is an absolute gem.

Your English is actually very good and I understood you clearly. Sorry, I'm stoned and silly things make me laugh sometimes.

The point is there is much, much more to the FE theory than a physics argument about gravity, therfore you cannot debunk the entire theory with just this one aspect of the argument.