What is your standard for evidence? I've seen plenty of information to convince me. The main proof is that the earth should curve at a certain rate, and that rate just isn't visible. How many experiments need to be done before you accept that piece of information? Look at the $18 million dollar model of the Mississippi River. It's accurate to within one millimeter, yet it's flat. How can that be? Land surveyors don't take curvature inn account, nor do building engineers, no do airplane pilots. How many others need to say it before you accept that nobody takes it into account because it doesn't exist?

What does the observation prove?

I agree. But they should not act as if the science is settled and the topic no longer deserves discussion. Why are all flat earth threads downvoted to zero? I thought downvoting was supposed to be used for statements that are non-contributions, not for statements that you don't personally believe in. If a flat earther counters a point made by a globe earther, it doesn't mean they haven't contributed to the discussion, so why are most comments like this at negative votes? Doesn't make sense.

Saying something looks funny is a simplified way of saying "this observed outcome doesn't match the expected outcome." Does that jive with your standard for academic language?

I don't personally know why the North Pole star can't be seen from the south, but that doesn't make the globe theory true. This is the limitation of the scientific method. It doesn't help you find the truth. It helps you find a hypothesis for a certain data set, but it's up to you to say "this hypothesis is likely true." Even if the theory matches the data, does that automatically make the theory true? No. In most cases, we treat it like it does and then we hope someone else comes along to replicate the results. We observe the sky and say "it is this way because the earth is a globe." Then we test that explanation until we find a hole in the theory. If we don't find a hole, does that make it true? Not necessarily. It could just mean we haven't found the hole in the theory yet. Saying "globe earth" can explain this phenomenon and your model can't, so therefore globe model is truth is a false assumption. Me not being able to explain it doesn't mean my model is incorrect. It just means I haven't figured out the process by which it works.

Alright I'm glad you recognize the difference at least. I'm still searching for answers myself. I'm just saying the discussion merits a place on this sub.

Haha please define how you are using the words “scientifically” “proven” and “theory.”

1. Why do you consider Big Bang to be a theory but consider globe earth to be a fact?

2. The ship going beyond the horizon is also explained by the flat earth model so that cannot be used as proof of the globe model. It explains it by saying that as the ship moves beyond your ability to see it, it begins to optically merge with the horizon. It’s not going over anything, it just appears that way as it moves away from you across a flat plane.

3. It’s funny that you mention the example of dinosaurs as proof that we can know about unseen things. It’s a separate discussion from flat earth, but ask yourself these questions: why were dinosaur bones only first discovered in 1820? If they were millions of years old, they would have been discovered by cultures around the world way prior to 1820. Plus isn’t it weird that a complete dinosaur skeleton has never been found? If they perished in a cataclysmic worldwide disaster, some of them should have been preserved completely as they were unable to escape the immediate destruction.

Ok so far, it looks like none of the points you made are conclusive proof of a globe earth. Let’s continue.

1. It’s a logical fallacy to say that “since I see spheres floating above my head, the thing I’m standing on must also be a sphere.” You understand that right? I mean it’s acceptable for guessing, but we are attempting to be scientifically accurate, so I don’t think there’s room for the assumption in question. Secondly, we can’t confirm that planets are spheres. They look circular in telescopes, but other than that, we can’t say whether they have the depth required to make them spheres or if they are just flat discs of light. For me to say “earth is the only flat one” would imply that I’m comparing things of the same type, and part of my argument is that they aren’t the same in the sense that a light in a room is not the same as the floor of the room. They are there to serve different purposes. One allows you to see, the other to stand.

2. Speaking of the North Star, considering we are moving around the sun, which is moving around the galaxy, which is also moving, why has the northern star not moved from its position over the course of a few millennia? It’s impossible in the heliocentric model and, in fact, it’s literally what you would expect in the flat model. The only reason you can’t see everything from every point on the surface is for the same reason that ships disappear on the horizon; your eyes literally can’t see that far.

Even if you don’t agree with 100% of what I said, have I shown you enough evidence to take the globe model from the “fact” bucket and put it back into the “theory” bucket where it belongs. Also do the same for Big Bang and dinosaurs. You haven’t done any research beyond what school taught you about those topics.

Let me start by saying I really appreciate the attempt at civil discussion. This is what dialogue should truly look like. We are simply people exchanging information with no reason to pass judgment or be cruel to each other. So thanks.

I watched the video and noticed that the title says that the fish eye lens effect was corrected. However, watch the video again at the part where it is above the cloud coverage. The camera is swinging in all kinds of directions, but there is one thing that tells me there is still a fish eye effect on the lens. When the camera is pointed straight at the horizon and the horizon bisects the middle of the viewfinder (which is already impossible because the horizon should never bisect the screen at that height in elevation), but when it’s in the middle of the shot, you’ll see it go straight across with no bend. Then as the camera pans downward and the horizon line moves up toward the outer edge of the shot, then the line begins to curve and it appears like the earth is a ball. So in other words, you can tell it still has a fish eye effect because the horizon keeps morphing from curved to flat, based on the angle of the camera. If it were not a fish eye lens, the curve would be consistently shown, no matter how wildly the camera was swinging. I hope you can look back and notice the changing horizon.

You ask why is there no picture of the flat earth? What are you really asking to see? Did you want a picture of the flat earth from far away in outer space showing how it’s a flat disc and how it’s simply suspended in space? Who of us is able to travel that far outside in order to take a real picture of the earth? None of us can, so we are at a disadvantage because we cannot empirically determine that for ourselves. On the flat earth map, the North Pole is the center, and the edges of the disc are in every direction south of the pole. That means the entire outer edge is everything below the 60 degree mark on a globe. Maybe we can send up a balloon from that region if we can’t get close enough to Antarctica to do it(Antarctic treaty prevents people from going there to do anything personal). In addition to this idea comes the burden of proof. If NASA claims they have a picture of earth and it looks round, fine. But what does it say when you study the pictures and find huge differences in land mass sizes from one decade to the next? If the entirety of their photographic evidence contradicts itself, then we have to admit that they simply haven’t provided the evidence to match the claim because all their evidence is contradictory.

Airplane pilots almost exclusively fly over the northern region and not once do they fly over the South Pole. The official explanation given is that it’s too cold, but if were on a spherical earth, it shouldn’t be any colder than the north, especially during the time of year when the Southern Hemisphere should be in summer. So that’s one aspect where it supports the flat model while simultaneously not supporting the globe model.

You are asking the right questions. It seems like it should be easy enough to go anywhere and just send up your own balloon with your own camera and settle everything once and for all. The problem is in getting close enough to the outer edge. The outer edge is protected from any unsupervised human activity by the Antarctic Treaty. If you want to do anything, you have to jump all of these expensive and time-consuming hurdles in order to apply to go there. Obviously if you say you’re gonna send a balloon up to check if the earth is flat, they’ll just reject you with some silly reason. So it’s not easy to get the the critical place that would settle the issue. Again with them blocking access and making up tenuous reasons that don’t hold up to scrutiny. So yeah regular people are blocked from doing that.

Lastly, you mention all you do is see people argue against spherical earth instead of arguing for flat earth. It goes back to the notion that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The positive claim in this instance would be that the earth is a sphere. So then NASA and whoever else gather all their evidence and present it to the world. Now if it doesn’t hold up, then we can say “hey it doesn’t seem to match reality. Let’s go back to the drawing board” but if the evidence is accurate and comprehensive, then we can say “yeah that seems to match in most if not all instances.” As of right now, it’s looking more like the former than the latter. NASA continues to put out evidence that, upon critical analysis, tends to create problems with the globe theory. That’s why you see people attacking the globe. The default position we would take if nobody told us otherwise would be that the earth is flat, fixed, and at the center of this place. If someone comes along and deceives 99% of people into believing something that is counter to their own experience and understanding, that doesn’t make the deceit true. It just means people have too much trust in these institutions and they generally don’t have the free time to watch hours upon hours of questionable footage from NASA.

As a call to action, I would invite you to watch this video where the host discusses a bunch of international flights that had to commit emergency landings. He shows how the places that planes landed in make no sense on a spherical earth and how they make perfect sense using the flat earth map. Thanks again for a great discussion. Remember, even if you don’t agree completely with all the points I’ve made, we are barely scratching the surface in terms of what evidence suggests that it’s not as described. Take a look at the video, thanks: https://youtu.be/figx1DBiIJE

Your line of thinking is correct in that we as citizens should be able to send up balloons on our own from places that are accessible to us. That was one of the points that convinced me. I saw high altitude balloon footage with no fisheye lens and what did it show? It showed the horizon bisecting the middle of the view. That’s impossible on a ball. It’s only possible if the earth is a flat plane. There is no northern edge. The north sits in the center and every direction south is going outward toward the edge. So the only edge possible to see would be the southern edge, but what limits us in this case, is the fact that the atmosphere limits how far we can see. Even if there were no atmosphere, our eyes cannot see infinitely far so just because it’s a flat plane doesn’t mean you can freely see all the way across it. To get a good view would necessitate getting close to Antarctica, which is the name given to the ice wall you hit when trying to go south in all directions.

Secondly, everything you said about Antarctica temperatures proves my point. According to the globe model, in a northern summer, the north faces the sun and the south points away from the sun. Now, in a southern summer, the same thing happens but in reverse; the south points toward the sun and the north points away. So if that’s the only difference, why is the south getting less sun and thus experiences colder temperatures? On a globe like earth, the temperatures of a northern winter should be the same as the temperatures of the southern winter. However, this is not the case. What we actually observe is that the north is far warmer than the south, which is an observation that fits the flat earth model while simultaneously being impossible on a globe model.

Third, I’m making a distinction about burden of proof because we don’t seem to be in agreement about with whom the burden of proof rests. If nobody taught us otherwise, the conclusion we would come to using direct observation is that the earth is flat and everything in the sky rotates around us. Therefore, that’s the default position. If someone wants to make a claim contrary to that, then the burden of proof is on then to provide the evidence. For instance, let’s say everyone does a rain dance to produce rain. Someone comes along and tells us “you don’t have to do rain dances. Just pay me because I’m the one who controls the artificial water source.” Now it’s up to that person to prove their claim. Now let’s say they produce a picture of themselves holding a water hose. Is that proof enough? No. Let’s say they produce a video of themselves spraying water. That might be enough proof to convince you, but if a video expert discovers that it’s edited, then you would insist the person was lying and you would go back to doing rain dances. Now let’s say the guy continues to produce videos and photos that are obviously manipulated for the purpose of convincing you he is the one in charge. Imagine how you would feel the the whole village except for you bought this guy’s lie. That’s the situation we’re in. This group of people came along and tried to make a positive claim that conflicted with simple observation. When it came time to produce evidence to prove their claim, they provided lies and deception. So therefore we can put that theory down and go back to square one.

In reference to the Southern Hemisphere flights, i can’t argue for certain that those flights exist or don’t, but the main takeaway I wanted you to get from that was that international flight paths make more sense on a flat earth map than they do on the globe map. First, I mentioned how observed temperatures make more sense on a flat map than the globe map, then I mentioned how observed flight paths make more sense on a flat map than a globe map. There are dozens of these points of contention that make zero sense when trying to apply the globe model, but make perfect sense when considering the flat model. Is that merely a coincidence or does it tell you that one model is a more accurate representation of reality?

Finally, what would it take for me to believe in a spherical earth? It’s like looking at a red cube and asking what it would take to convince me that it’s a green sphere. If you could show me it’s a green sphere, then that would convince me! However, I don’t understand how one could possibly attempt to convince someone a red cube is a green sphere. They don’t share the same shape or color. So what would convince me? Showing me evidence that the earth is a sphere would convince me it’s a sphere. As of right now, all the physical evidence I see that attempts to support the globe is either deceptive in nature or simply uninformed. If you tell me it’s a sphere, then that sphere has a certain rate of curvature, which is not observed at all anywhere in earth. How can you assert that it’s a sphere is the basic definition for a sphere is not even met?

I searched on Youtube "high altitude balloon footage no fisheye" and there were several results, this being one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Hwk17F8Y&frags=pl%2Cwn

Yes, this one does show the horizon as being flat all the way across. Even though you mentioned it would look that way without a fisheye lens, what is more important to note is the fact that it is eye level with the camera. At 115,000 feet, the earth below you would not extend out to your eye level. That only happens on a flat plane. Do you understand the difference in perspective that the two surfaces generate?

I hadn't considered the point about Antarctica being at a higher elevation, so that makes sense. However, the issue with the water temperatures being different proves my point, not yours.

What flight are you referring to that crashed in Antarctica? The point of contention about flight paths was that they are wildly different on a globe versus the flat map. When analyzing certain international flight plans utilizing the globe model, they make no sense from a business standpoint. Like the emergency landing in Alaska; how does it make economic sense for an airplane to be flying a path that would allow them to make an emergency stop in Alaska? It doesn't make sense at all. Airplane fuel is expensive, the pilots can't just be careless. But when you overlay the flight path into a flat map, it makes perfect sense, and thus the airplane was actually not wasting fuel as it seemed before. You need to understand the discrepancy in flight paths and you need to understand the lengths any business will go to minimize its costs.

All I said was that in order for me to be believe in a spherical earth, I would have to be shown a sphere. I didn't say I would need it to be shown from space. If it were a sphere, we could measure the ground and find out how much the sphere curves. If we know the exact diameter or circumference of the sphere, then we can calculate the rate we should expect the sphere to curve. When we do the calculations with the circumference of earth, we see that the curve should happen at 8 inches per mile squared for every mile of distance between two points on the sphere. So let's check our answer. Has anyone ever measured the earth to curve at 8 inches per mile squared? No. Plain and simple. It's never been measured to have any curvature. So if a sphere curves, upon what basis can you claim the earth is a sphere?

You make it sound like I'm saying that all I do is look down and see the ground curving. No. There are scientific means by which we can determine if the space between two points is flat or curved. If it were curved, everybody (engineers, architects, surveyors, pilots, captains) would be able to replicate those findings. Ask a random sample of the aforementioned people whether they take the curvature of the earth into account in their daily work and I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 of them say they don't (and in the case of the 1 out of 10, they probably have hypothetical calculations that make adjustments that end up being practically insignificant anyway).

It doesn't matter whether my view is pre- or post- anyone else's view. Those are appeals to authority and tradition and aren't scientific in the least.

Lmao either every single person who works with construction on the land must account for curvature or none of them. It’s not some do, some don’t. If it were a globe, the curvature should be measurable by anyone and everyone, yet it’s not.

Also, if you can see a curve in the video I linked, then it’s because you’re expecting to see one and your brain is trying to match the raw data to the expectation in order to minimize cognitive dissonance. Take a straight edge, pause the video, and measure it. It definitely will not show 8 inches per mile squared, which is the only possible rate given the earth’s circumference.

The fact that you don’t have to account for curvature proves there is no curve.

Secondly, you keep referring to 8 inches per mile—the actual rate is 8 inches per mile squared—and the way you speak about it tells me that you don’t understand spherical geometry / trigonometry. You measured an alleged curve in the video. You can’t just say it’s a curve a be done with it. Does it match the rate of curvature you would expect to see at that elevation, given the circumference of the earth?

That’s fine. Make all your assumptions about me, including that I’m lazy. A lazy person would not utilize free time in their adult life in order to analyze information they learned as a child and synthesize it into a theory that goes against their fundamental understanding of the world. If that makes me lazy then I wonder what you think of people who accepted facts they were taught in school without verifying those claims empirically.

Lmfao you argue like many others who only want to assert their position instead of find the truth. Thanks for the chat anyway.

How do we have a proper discussion? You are on your side and I am on my side, so whenever one side presents an argument, the other side is thinking the entire time about how to refute it, instead of thinking about the argument itself and whether there is merit.

I looked at the Wikipedia page for Sue and it mentions that the bones were found partially above ground in an area they weren’t working. If the paleontologist could look down on the ground and find them, how is it possible that nobody prior to 1820 found anything? You say we are more advanced now than they were, but if you found a random bone on the ground, could you determine what animal it was from? The natives likely could. You’d think they’d be the first ones to tell stories of these giant lizard bones they found. You don’t need modern excavation equipment for that. Dinosaurs are a modern fabrication reinforced by Hollywood (just like every other lie in society is reinforced by them).

Haha you've referred to my post as "spam" multiple times and you've said I have "weak logical reasoning." Sounds more like the qualities of someone who can only copy-paste the same comment over and over. Haha the nerve to call my logical reasoning weak. You have a very defensive ego.

"And arguing with someone who isn't debating in good faith is futile."

This seems to be the root of the issue and each side is accusing the other of being guilty.

YouTube isn't a source of information. It is a means to convey information. Attacking the credibility of YouTube does nothing to counter the information presented by someone via YouTube. The arguments can be made inside and outside YouTube clips.

"We" haha are you 4000 years old?

You're so full of yourself it's hilarious. Get off your high horse and adopt a stance of intellectual humility. You might learn more than you ever thought possible. On the contrary, it's intellectual arrogance that denigrates discussion on this sub, not whatever idea you deem inferior.

Everything is real and nothing is real.

As he also said, arguing with someone isn't debating with integrity is futile. You've said retard and flat head in your comment. Somehow I don't think your intentions on finding the truth are pure. Sounds more like you're interested in confirming particular viewpoints as opposed to finding the truth, wherever it may lead.

Agreed. Especially when the political stuff is so small in scope, it's like arguing about a button on your shirt when the whole shirt should be changed.

Let me start by saying I really appreciate the attempt at civil discussion. This is what dialogue should truly look like. We are simply people exchanging information with no reason to pass judgment or be cruel to each other. So thanks.

I watched the video and noticed that the title says that the fish eye lens effect was corrected. However, watch the video again at the part where it is above the cloud coverage. The camera is swinging in all kinds of directions, but there is one thing that tells me there is still a fish eye effect on the lens. When the camera is pointed straight at the horizon and the horizon bisects the middle of the viewfinder (which is already impossible because the horizon should never bisect the screen at that height in elevation), but when it’s in the middle of the shot, you’ll see it go straight across with no bend. Then as the camera pans downward and the horizon line moves up toward the outer edge of the shot, then the line begins to curve and it appears like the earth is a ball. So in other words, you can tell it still has a fish eye effect because the horizon keeps morphing from curved to flat, based on the angle of the camera. If it were not a fish eye lens, the curve would be consistently shown, no matter how wildly the camera was swinging. I hope you can look back and notice the changing horizon.

You ask why is there no picture of the flat earth? What are you really asking to see? Did you want a picture of the flat earth from far away in outer space showing how it’s a flat disc and how it’s simply suspended in space? Who of us is able to travel that far outside in order to take a real picture of the earth? None of us can, so we are at a disadvantage because we cannot empirically determine that for ourselves. On the flat earth map, the North Pole is the center, and the edges of the disc are in every direction south of the pole. That means the entire outer edge is everything below the 60 degree mark on a globe. Maybe we can send up a balloon from that region if we can’t get close enough to Antarctica to do it(Antarctic treaty prevents people from going there to do anything personal). In addition to this idea comes the burden of proof. If NASA claims they have a picture of earth and it looks round, fine. But what does it say when you study the pictures and find huge differences in land mass sizes from one decade to the next? If the entirety of their photographic evidence contradicts itself, then we have to admit that they simply haven’t provided the evidence to match the claim because all their evidence is contradictory.

Airplane pilots almost exclusively fly over the northern region and not once do they fly over the South Pole. The official explanation given is that it’s too cold, but if were on a spherical earth, it shouldn’t be any colder than the north, especially during the time of year when the Southern Hemisphere should be in summer. So that’s one aspect where it supports the flat model while simultaneously not supporting the globe model.

You are asking the right questions. It seems like it should be easy enough to go anywhere and just send up your own balloon with your own camera and settle everything once and for all. The problem is in getting close enough to the outer edge. The outer edge is protected from any unsupervised human activity by the Antarctic Treaty. If you want to do anything, you have to jump all of these expensive and time-consuming hurdles in order to apply to go there. Obviously if you say you’re gonna send a balloon up to check if the earth is flat, they’ll just reject you with some silly reason. So it’s not easy to get the the critical place that would settle the issue. Again with them blocking access and making up tenuous reasons that don’t hold up to scrutiny. So yeah regular people are blocked from doing that.

Lastly, you mention all you do is see people argue against spherical earth instead of arguing for flat earth. It goes back to the notion that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The positive claim in this instance would be that the earth is a sphere. So then NASA and whoever else gather all their evidence and present it to the world. Now if it doesn’t hold up, then we can say “hey it doesn’t seem to match reality. Let’s go back to the drawing board” but if the evidence is accurate and comprehensive, then we can say “yeah that seems to match in most if not all instances.” As of right now, it’s looking more like the former than the latter. NASA continues to put out evidence that, upon critical analysis, tends to create problems with the globe theory. That’s why you see people attacking the globe. The default position we would take if nobody told us otherwise would be that the earth is flat, fixed, and at the center of this place. If someone comes along and deceives 99% of people into believing something that is counter to their own experience and understanding, that doesn’t make the deceit true. It just means people have too much trust in these institutions and they generally don’t have the free time to watch hours upon hours of questionable footage from NASA.

As a call to action, I would invite you to watch this video where the host discusses a bunch of international flights that had to commit emergency landings. He shows how the places that planes landed in make no sense on a spherical earth and how they make perfect sense using the flat earth map. Thanks again for a great discussion. Remember, even if you don’t agree completely with all the points I’ve made, we are barely scratching the surface in terms of what evidence suggests that it’s not as described. Take a look at the video, thanks: https://youtu.be/figx1DBiIJE

I looked at the Wikipedia page for Sue and it mentions that the bones were found partially above ground in an area they weren’t working. If the paleontologist could look down on the ground and find them, how is it possible that nobody prior to 1820 found anything? You say we are more advanced now than they were, but if you found a random bone on the ground, could you determine what animal it was from? The natives likely could. You’d think they’d be the first ones to tell stories of these giant lizard bones they found. You don’t need modern excavation equipment for that. Dinosaurs are a modern fabrication reinforced by Hollywood (just like every other lie in society is reinforced by them).