As I said to /u/CHU_LO, this seems like a pretty darn open and shut case example showing - proving - the Earth is not in fact flat. As asked in the OP, I wonder how they could possibly account for the information presented.

Their current silence is pretty deafening, honestly.

Yeah. Fair enough. However, I'm not sure how they can argue against the info in the OP really. Seems like a pretty easy open and shut case there.

Already responded to you at length elsewhere.

Doesn't seem like a horrible response to me, honestly, but I'm also not sure you're not falling off the edge of Occam's razor with it.

Are the rest of the objects in the universe flat? Like, for example, take this picture right here. That's a round object. You can see it in the gradation of the shadows in the perimeter of the object's circumference.

Is that object flat? Certainly doesn't look flat to me.

Is it just the Earth that's flat and all the other objects in the universe are globular? or does the Flat Earth theory also apply to every other object in the universe uniformly, saying everything is flat?

Is that object flat? Certainly doesn't look flat to me.

The 'scientists' disagree with you

Uh. Actually they totally agree with me. What are you talking about? The very title of the article you linked is:

The Moon Is (Slightly) Flat

Hell, even according to the "Round Earthers", the Earth is "slightly flat" - i.e. it's a sphere. It's a "round" Earth that's flattened at its center - making it a sphere.

So...the example in your first link actually buoys a spherical, oblate planetoid idea - not "disagrees" with it.

if you are flat living in a flatland, how then can you even conceptualize the space outside of it

...I'm...not flat though.

And you know the shape of the moon in what way?

What I just said above: The shaded gradation that occurs approaching the perimeter of the moon, as well as the observable distortion of the rounded craters as they approach its perimeter.

This is exactly what is observed on actual rounded objects here on Earth.

Independent of this, this question is actually shirking my initial question above: Is every object in the universe flat too then? if the Earth is flat?

by looking a single side that never moves away from Earth?

No. It’s assessed by observing how its appearance matches EXACTLY the appearance and shaded gradation that actual spherical objects have here on Earth when one holds said rounded object with their hand and has it right in front of their face.

And if it is a sphere, that means the ground you are standing on is a sphere?

If the planet I’m standing on is not a sphere, then that means that this phenomenon is in all likelihood not singular or unique, which means that other objects - especially objects in its near vicinity - should demonstrate similar characteristics. However, the planetary object closest to it actually doesn’t seem to exhibit such characteristics. The other planetary objects in its solar vicinity also don’t seem to exhibit such characteristics either.

So the idea that the Earth is flat yet surrounded by a bunch of objects that certainly have the appearance of sphericalness is rather pointedly counter to even the most basic logic.

Trying to understand the deductions you are using...

Trying to help you understand them.

If you were you wouldn't know you are.

Cogito ergo sum. My thinking proves that there’s at least a “me” doing the thinking regardless of what that “me” actually is one way or the other. With that in mind, I look at the world before me, including myself, and it certainly appears VERY not flat. You’re saying that I am flat yet am interpreting myself and the world around me as having definite shape because I am somehow two dimensional?

Notice the orange ring just below the magnet.

Tell us if its flat or not.

The orange ring below the magnet is flat, as it is reflecting on a flat surface.

Does it have depth?

It has illusory depth, but not real or actual depth.

A better example you should have used is something like this.

Is the image in the mirror flat or not? Does it have depth?

The image in the mirror is in fact flat. It does not have depth.

At that point, however, you have cut off your nose to spite your face because you must account for the source of the reflection. A reflection itself in no way proves any sort of Flat Earth theory because it presupposes that which is being reflected upon it - an object which isn’t flat.

And yet when you see depth elsewhere you are certain it's actual depth.

Incorrect. Depends on what kind of depth it is. I gave you an example above of a time when “actual” depth is perceived, and a time when “possible illusory” depth is perceived.

And you still haven’t responded to my earlier question: Is it just the Earth that’s flat? or is it also every planet, star, asteroid, and object in the universe as well that's flat?

Ah. Okay. So you skirtingly, kind of sheepishly, unauthentically provided the answer in a kind of round about way.

Okay. So now you're saying that the entire universe itself is flat. Right.

Um...okay...so if that's the case, then how is it exactly that one accounts for this response on my part? If the universe is flat, then how come I'm not flat? How come literally every single physical item I see - including myself - is most definitely not flat?

Firstly, being flat, as it’s understood in common parlance, can actually easily be conceived - and this is the very reason why it’s so easy to refute this argument that “the entire universe is flat”.

Secondly, if you are now trying to argue that being flat can’t be conceived, then ultimately you HAVE no argument, because how can you argue in favor of a state that you just admitted you’re not even aware of and can’t conceive?

If you see the world in 3 dimensions but the space around you is 4 or 5 just exactly how do you perceive what "flat" is in 4 or 5 dimensional space?

We’re not attempting to assess “flatness in 4 or 5 dimensional space”. That’s never been the issue or the argument. Flatness in THREE dimensional space is what’s been at issue - which almost necessarily does not, almost cannot exist. Flatness implies lack of breadth, lack of thickness, lack of depth - and this existence definitely has thickness, even if only illusory.

notice in simulations (video games) the game engine does not use proper physics or the standard model. It just works. To display exactly what we see. Yet it uses entirely different principles.

This is an argument in favor of a simulated universe. This is all good and well, but this is entirely besides the actual point. I have no problem with this being a simulated existence. I myself imagine that it almost necessarily is simulated to at least some extent.

You’re assuming that the reality behind the postulated simulation is flat, however, and the argument you use in attempt to prove this cosmic flatness is actually the very reason why you don’t actually know - and at this rate, it seems pretty much can’t know - exactly WHAT is the actual reality behind whatever simulation currently exists, much less what its shape is…and VERY much less that this shape is in any way “flat”.

If its illusionary it's illusionary. You used the mirror example after all.

Illusory existence is still a type of existence. It’s just not as “true” (whatever tf that means) as “real” existence (whatever tf that means).

No it's not. By definition that is impossible [the only reality we know is this one, we simulate our reality in simulations - what we perceive | our creation is a simulation | our reality is our reality].

The bracketed statement shows that you don’t know what a simulated existence is. You’re drawing conclusions from entirely faulty premises - making the conclusions you draw just as faulty.

There need be no “we” that creates the simulation.

It makes sense that simulations reflect something in our underlying reality since we are simulating our reality. It does not mean our reality is simulated.

The bolded section is an assumption that is not known. You are therefore incorrect in assuming it as being valid.

Independent of this, your second sentence, AGAIN invalidates your entire argument because if our reality isn’t simulated, then the universe ISN’T flat given that I and the world around me aren’t flat.

Holographic universe it may be. But it's really observable evidence that would lead us towards that.

Observable evidence has led to that already. Remote viewing is a real, testable, proven phenomenon. That alone shows the holographic nature of existence.

The fact many things cannot be explained adds weight to holographic theory.

…I don’t know or see how, but if you are arguing FOR the holographic theory here all the sudden…then you are, again, arguing against your self and your very own “Flat Cosmos” model.

I never attempted to prove anything.

Seems to me like you’ve been trying to prove the existence of a flat cosmos this entire time.

In fact my entire point is that we don't know and any "scientist" that claims they do is full of shit. By definition not a scientist.

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this - which ultimately AGAIN takes the flat cosmos model of existence you seem to have been propounding this entire time and entirely undermines it at its very foundational root.

But then it's not a "simulation" to us. It's reality.

Hasn’t part of the argument that you’ve made this entire time been that this whole thing is reality to us?

If you create a computer game are the NPCs living in a simulation or are they in their reality.

Both. It’s their reality - and it’s a simulation.

It may be that all realities are simulations of a higher being. There's always a bigger fish.

BOOM. Now you’re starting to get it. Exactly this. What that reality actually is is another thing altogether, however, and to postulate that the underlying strata of reality is somehow flat is not only highly unlikely, but cannot really be assessed one way or the other from the perspective of the NPCs in the simulation (in this case, us).

Simulations we create simulate our reality. It's not an assumption. We purposely design simulations to reflect what we see in reality. They may not be a perfect image or reflection of it but our intent is to produce the best facsimile possible. There is no arguing against this.

I believe I understand what you’re saying now.

To go back to what you were previously saying then…

It makes sense that simulations reflect something in our underlying reality since we are simulating our reality. It does not mean our reality is simulated.

According to the proven holographic model of existence it does.

If you agree to this Im not sure why you don't consider the possibility of multi-dimensional reality where for instance, on Earth it's flat, but outside of it, it's round - looking from one to another may be whatever.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t consider the possibility of reality being multidimensional. I never said or even implied anything like that.

Reality is multidimensional.

I just understand that there is no reason to assume that reality is flat. That’s a far, far different thing altogether than “not considering the possibility of [a] multi-dimensional reality”.

I have no model. I do not know. I never claimed to know. You are picking a fight with a ghost my friend.

I’m picking zero fight. I’m just letting it be known that if you’re arguing for a flat Earth - which it absolutely seemed you were when you came on here - then either we’re in a simulation which would mean that A) humans can’t know since we’re currently NPCs in that simulation, or B) we’re not in a simulation and therefore existence is simply not flat since it is observably not flat. Both A and B mean that a flat universe is either flat out wrong, or simply unknowable currently.

Essentially my argument is, the Earth may be flat when we are on it, and curved when we are looking at it from another perspective. 

If you would have come here initially saying that, then we would have had literally none of this conversation because I would have simply said “Yeah. Sure. The Earth may be flat.”

“May” means “might be, might not be”.

I’ve no problem with that.

But outside of that even the "scientists" state the universe is flat

Depends on which “scientists” you refer to. Others quite validly show it isn’t.

perhaps that may be why we perceive its flat.

To my knowledge, we don’t.

If you add in extra dimensions it allows for an entirely different interpretation. (e.g. when you enter "space" you are entering another dimension.)

Quite possibly.

You seem to mistaking my criticism of the standard model and my sympathy for flat earthers as a position that I support flat earth.

The standard model is lacking. Heavily. I don’t understand why you or anyone would have sympathy for a psyop unless one is themselves part of it.

Anything one cannot observe directly is something that can't be known.

Incorrect. You don’t know you have an eyeball? A nose? Cheeks?

I imagine you assume you have a head, right? Have you ever observed it directly?

direct observations [line of sight, perspective, horizon rising to level, etc] all suggest the earth is flat

Depends on what information one uses. Just as much (actually more) data indicating direct observation suggests curvature.

That's not to say I believe the earth is flat. I just see the idea as valid as saying it's spherical.

Appears to be a lot more validity toward curvature as far as I’ve been able to asses.

You cannot measure the sphere directly 

I don’t see why one can’t. Flat or spheroid, it seems that one definitely can if they’re logistically capable of it. In theory, it seems absolutely possible to measure the sphere directly.

So its not that I believe the Earth is flat, but only that it appears so in many ways, and to me thats as valid as creating a arbitrary theoretical model which is about as insightful as simply saying the earth resides on the back of a turtle.

Appears spheroid more often than flat as far as I’ve been able to asses.

Capisce?

the thing that put me onto it was the reaction from the 'debunking' crowd (which I was a part of at the time). When the majority of the response is ad hominem attack there is a problem with your position.

There haven’t been much if any ad hominem attacks here and the flat universe model has remained singularly lacking thus far.

You say you are not advocating for it, which is all good and well because the information you’ve shown only indicates that we might be living in a simulation. This is something I was never contesting in the first place. I only contested anyone stating that the foundation of that possible simulation is a flat universe.

What about you?

I have ideas and voice them as such as well, and make it a point to stay as far away from beliefs as possible.

The only direct observation as to the shape of the Earth would be to leave the earth and directly observe it.

Things can get extremely deep at this point because we can get into various whistleblowers and the like whose information is A) not easy to refute, and B) all attest to a spherical model of the universe.

I’d sooner go with their testimonies before any current proponent of a flat earth/universe model.

what about the poster children of modern space flight?

That’s a completely different issue altogether - one that very likely has to do with a lot more than any possible “flat universe disclosure”. We live on a prison planet nestled right in the midst of a cosmos that is very populated by intelligent beings - some/many of whom are far more evolved and advanced than Earth humans.

Whatever astronauts may have been privy to this fact likely A) freaked that fuck out, and B) were told to STFU or else.

That’s enough to make anybody have the expression on their face that these astronauts did.

And what about from Neil Armostrong who refused to speak about the moon landings for ~40 years.

See my above comment.

Fuck current "$cience". I believe as little as possible. I go with observable data and what my eyes and experience and logical thinking leads me toward.

Physical objects that have the same gradation and shadowing that, for example, the picture of the moon I linked has, and that are not painted or a themselves a picture/photograph, are also factually, physically round. It's a sound inductive argument to conclude that the moon is therefore round as well given its appearance and likeness to objects which in point of fact are observably round here on this planet.

So does an orange to a flea. In this case, we're the fleas.

I might not disagree with that.

Not really. Not in the least actually. More like "explained a lot of nothing".

How can the universe be flat when I and everything and everyone I see around me is part of that universe and yet none of that is flat?

Are you saying "Everything in the universe is flat...except um...except you and everything and everyone you see around you."?

Because it's all a hologram.

So you’re saying “All of existence only seems to have depth and breadth. It’s really flat. We’re really living in a simulation that tells us everything is round and has shape. Everything’s really flat though.”

Okay wait a minute…do you even know what a hologram is? Do you realize that a hologram is a device that projects the whole of a thing into every part of the very object? In other words, if this is a hologram, then that actually works AGAINST your argument because in a hologram, every part mirrors the whole - which would mean that if we’re living in a hologram, then the actual source of that hologram is ALSO three dimensional (i.e. NOT flat) because this very existence is three dimensional and not flat.

Your argument is literally logically self-defeating.

The visible/palpable dimensions are not real, they just seem so, just as if you were wearing 3d goggles and a "multi-sensory" suit.

So your argument basically has its foundation in Descartes’ “evil genius” argument in logic.

Descartes himself soundly dealt with that argument with his “Cogito ergo sum” counterpoint, however.

You’re essentially saying “It doesn’t matter how things seem. I’m telling you we live in a simulation where everything’s in reality flat.” So existence only has depth and breadth in seeming then is your argument, right?

Listen, even if existence is three dimensional in seeming only, then within the context of this “seeming”, this illusion (not “hologram”. What you meant to say is that existence is an illusion, not a hologram) then existence - and the planets, stars, and other stellar objects, etc - is still three dimensional/round/spheroid/has depth and shape.

Your argument is essentially an evil genius argument - saying that it doesn’t matter how things seem here, they’re REALLY something else.

Okay. I understand that much.

There is almost no sound evidence or argument that I’m aware of, however, showing or indicating that this “something else” you say existence “really” is…is flat.

That’s just as well as putting any random, arbitrary description on what things really are. You’re saying “We live in an illusion. Therefore the way existence really is…is [wait for it]…FLAT.”

Hell, if we do live in an illusion (and I wouldn’t necessarily argue against that) then the reality could be really ANYTHING - flat, rectangular, hexagonal…or whatever. Or it may simply be of a different quality within the context of what actually already is.

Either way, you don’t/didn't provide a good argument at all in terms of accounting for whatever validity may exist in this flat Earth universe model of existence.

And as I already stated elsewhere in this OP, if it’s a mirror, then, even off of your very own argument, it’s reflecting something. What is it reflecting? Do you know? Is that flat? Is what it’s reflecting flat as well?

And if what’s being reflected isn’t flat, then YOU and existence around you are therefore not flat either regardless of what the reflection indicates.

Do you look at yourself in the mirror and say "Yep. I'm FLAT."? No. You don't (or at least hopefully you don't, if you're of even mildly sound mind). You realize the mirror's only a reflection of the real you - who ISN'T flat.

Don’t say the Earth or the universe is “flat” then. Simply say “Real and true existence in this universe is a reflection of something we do not as of yet know the source of.”

See? How hard is that? Nothing wrong with saying that.

However, to go from “it’s a mirror” to “which means it’s definitely FLAT”…is just…not. good. logic. Not even a little bit.

So you start off saying “Wrong” in here…but then you go on to prove the very argument against yourself. Are you like…not seeing this?

The universe is a mirror that reflects itself

If that’s the case, then the universe is DEFINITELY not flat - because I’m definitely not “flat” and everything around me definitely isn’t - as I’ve already said. How is it that you can say A) the universe is flat, yet B) the universe reflects itself, when C) things are OBSERVABLY NOT FLAT??

"It only seems to be flat" is your argument, right? Okay...

Again, this is the very Cartesian argument I already addressed above.

a mirror juxtaposed against another effectively infinite array of mirrors, all phenomena in the universe are themselves mirrors that reflect off of each other and that create the effect of each other, their apparent existence and movement, appearance and disappearance in a movement that is purely optical and dimensionally illusory.

And this does absolutely nothing to the notion that the original object that’s reflected may or may not be flat. Doesn’t matter if it’s one or one million mirrors all reflecting one thing. The argument I made above in the previous post still applies.

The human mind, that is brain, is itself a mirroristic instrument, reflective and projective of what it was formed to observe, it is the mirror par excellence that hides the reality of all other mirrors, that makes possible the illusion of the whole and seeming dimensional reality of all its seemingly infinite parts.

A) The brain and the mind are not the same thing.

B) Nothing you’ve said here undermines or contradicts the fact that a mirror reflects an object, and you don’t know what the original composition of that initial object is. As such, alleging “flatness” on an object that can be any shape or size is…not intelligent.

...ಠ_ಠ

You really came here and attempted to give me an argument for the very thing I've already advocated for at length? and did so with an attempt at some sort of snarky comment?

Really? lol damn. smh

?

k

Dude, don't take it so seriously, it's not like you'll ever directly experience living in a flat world.

You literally changed your comment after I already responded to it? What?

Additionally, this comment here (which I quoted this time in case you decide to go back and change it again) confirms that you yourself don't take the whole "flat earth" thing seriously.

we can verify an orange's true shape. In fact, so could a flea.

Sigh. Wanna use a cell then? Would that help you in understanding the analogy?

we can verify an orange's true shape. In fact, so could a flea. It could walk around the orange in any direction and end up where it started.

You're saying a person can't circumnavigate this planet?

That has yet to be replicated on earth by a human.

Oh damn. He is saying that.

Apparently he's never heard of the Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation of the planet that happened almost half a millennium ago.

Jesus. The public education system really does continue to fail.

And if someone went North to South all the way around, the same argument can be made as is currently being made regarding going East to West all the way around.

k.

It's said there's a hole in one of the poles. Forget which one - North or South, so there's that.

I might not disagree with that.

If its illusionary it's illusionary. You used the mirror example after all.

Illusory existence is still a type of existence. It’s just not as “true” (whatever tf that means) as “real” existence (whatever tf that means).

No it's not. By definition that is impossible [the only reality we know is this one, we simulate our reality in simulations - what we perceive | our creation is a simulation | our reality is our reality].

The bracketed statement shows that you don’t know what a simulated existence is. You’re drawing conclusions from entirely faulty premises - making the conclusions you draw just as faulty.

There need be no “we” that creates the simulation.

It makes sense that simulations reflect something in our underlying reality since we are simulating our reality. It does not mean our reality is simulated.

The bolded section is an assumption that is not known. You are therefore incorrect in assuming it as being valid.

Independent of this, your second sentence, AGAIN invalidates your entire argument because if our reality isn’t simulated, then the universe ISN’T flat given that I and the world around me aren’t flat.

Holographic universe it may be. But it's really observable evidence that would lead us towards that.

Observable evidence has led to that already. Remote viewing is a real, testable, proven phenomenon. That alone shows the holographic nature of existence.

The fact many things cannot be explained adds weight to holographic theory.

…I don’t know or see how, but if you are arguing FOR the holographic theory here all the sudden…then you are, again, arguing against your self and your very own “Flat Cosmos” model.

I never attempted to prove anything.

Seems to me like you’ve been trying to prove the existence of a flat cosmos this entire time.

In fact my entire point is that we don't know and any "scientist" that claims they do is full of shit. By definition not a scientist.

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this - which ultimately AGAIN takes the flat cosmos model of existence you seem to have been propounding this entire time and entirely undermines it at its very foundational root.