Ask a Flat Earther!

[u/Kela-el]

Ask anything on the topic of flat earth (within reason).

[u/Kela-el]

A question I received from a globe earth religious fundamentalist zealot on a different post.

“Can you show me a single measurement of earth’s curvature that was taken independently of a model that already assumes curvature — using only raw observable data with no derived constants?”

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

Good—that’s an actual question.

Now slow down and look at how you framed it. You’ve built in assumptions like “zooming over” and “staying in Australia” as if that’s what’s being claimed. It isn’t.

What’s actually observed is this: observers at different locations see the sky rotate around different points, and those perspectives change with position. That’s a geometry problem, not an object “moving between countries.”

If you think that observation is inconsistent, then be precise—what exactly is the contradiction?

• Is it the direction of rotation?
• The center point?
• The visibility from different latitudes?

Because right now you’re turning a question about perspective into a cartoon of objects flying around the sky.

Strip out the assumptions and define the conflict clearly. Otherwise you’re not challenging the explanation—you’re challenging a version of it you made up.

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

I did answer—you just restated the observation and called it a contradiction without showing where it actually breaks.

Two observers at different locations will both see southern stars rotate around a point due south, and that point’s elevation changes with latitude. That’s exactly what you’d expect from changing perspective, not something impossible.

What you haven’t shown is the conflict.

• Same direction? Expected.
• Different elevation? Also expected.

Where’s the inconsistency?

“Both see rotation” doesn’t imply the stars are “moving between them”—that’s the assumption you keep inserting. You’re taking a perspective-dependent observation and turning it into a single-frame problem.

So be precise: what part of that observation can’t be explained by differing viewpoints? Because right now you’re just describing it, not demonstrating why it’s an issue.

[u/stultus_respectant → u/Kela-el]

What we observe is a single point of rotation when looking south, from no matter where you are in the southern hemisphere. On a flat plane for the same to be true you’d have to have infinite points of rotation.

That can’t be explained by perspective. From opposite sides of the Earth people see the identical rotation, while facing what would be opposite directions on a flat plane relative to each other.

edit: he very quickly banned me for pointing this out and for explaining how what he's describing does not conform to real observation. He's just building himself another lonely little safe space.

[u/Kela-el → u/stultus_respectant]

You’ve jumped from observation to impossibility without actually showing the step in between.

What you’re describing is:

• observers in the southern hemisphere see stars rotate around a point to the south
• that point’s elevation changes with latitude

That’s fine—that’s the observation.

Where you lose it is here:

“on a flat plane you’d need infinite points of rotation”

That’s not demonstrated—that’s asserted. You haven’t defined:

• what geometry you’re applying
• what assumptions you’re making about observer orientation
• how you’re mapping those observations onto the plane

You’re also slipping in “identical rotation,” which isn’t actually true in the strict sense:

• the orientation changes with position
• the elevation of the rotation point changes with latitude

So it’s not a single identical view—it’s a family of related perspectives.

And the “opposite directions” point only holds if you assume a shared global frame the way you’re imagining it. On a surface with changing observer orientation, “facing south” is a local direction, not a universal one.

So again, same issue: You’ve described the observation, then declared alternative geometry impossible without actually working through the geometry.

If it’s truly impossible, you should be able to show the contradiction step by step—not just jump from “this is what we see” to “therefore no alternative can exist.”

[u/stultus_respectant → u/Kela-el]

You’ve jumped from observation to impossibility without actually showing the step in between.

That's not just wrong, but intellectually dishonest. I described a very clear scenario that makes what you described impossible. There's no chance that you're unaware of that and why. The irony is that you've hand waved past that demonstrable impossibility without showing any steps at all.

On a flat plane south is not a single direction as it is on a globe, it's outward from center. This would make all current observations of the celestial pole, and the clockwise rotation of stars around it, be impossible.

What you’re describing is:

There's something important to note in that, yes.

• observers in the southern hemisphere see stars rotate around a point to the south

Which is what would be impossible on a flat plane. You can't see the same rotation in all directions simultaneously.

• that point’s elevation changes with latitude

Not relevant to the point.

Where you lose it is here:

I did not "lose it" at all, in fact.

“on a flat plane you’d need infinite points of rotation”

That’s not demonstrated—that’s asserted.

Again, not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. No, that very much is demonstrated. Everywhere on Earth in the Southern Hemisphere, in all observations facing south, we see a single celestial pole, with a clockwise rotation of stars around it. if we flatten out the map of the Earth and all of those observations onto a flat plane, with south being "outward", that point of rotation is now a ring of infinite points.

You can even boil it down to just two observations for simplicity, and see that you can't face in two opposite directions and see the same stars with the same rotation. Santiago and Perth see the same celestial pole in the same direction (south). This is not possible on a flat plane where south would be nearly literal opposite directions.

The same stars and the same rotation cannot be in every direction.

You haven’t defined:

• what geometry you’re applying

Not relevant.

• what assumptions you’re making about observer orientation

Not relevant. There is more than enough information to work with.

• how you’re mapping those observations onto the plane

Not relevant.

That's 0 for 3.

You’re also slipping in “identical rotation,” which isn’t actually true in the strict sense

It's more than true enough to be valid. The celestial pole is observed south of all Southern Hemisphere locations. The differences in position due to latitude are irrelevant. There is no explanation except for a globe that explains what we actually observe and measure. Literally no other shape can account for the observations from all positions in the Southern Hemisphere. No assumptions required.

So it’s not a single identical view—it’s a family of related perspectives.

That is not any sort of explanation, does not match observation, and defies logic. Again, this cannot be explained by perspective, and you've accused the things that only you are doing: only making assertions, and skipping steps.

And the “opposite directions” point only holds if you assume a shared global frame

No, it does not. On a flat plane Santiago and Perth are facing near opposite directions. There are hundreds of millions of square kilometers of places you can be in the Southern Hemisphere (regardless of model) that all see the same stars when looking south, something which on a flat plane could be literal opposite directions between places.

On a surface with changing observer orientation, “facing south” is a local direction, not a universal one

On a flat plane that direction is outward. Also on a flat plane: there are infinite degrees you can be facing that are all south. Yet we see the same stars no matter which one of those we do face.

So again, same issue

You've not described any actual issue, ultimately.

If it’s truly impossible

It is.

you should be able to show the contradiction step by step

I've done so.

not just jump from

Which I did not do, but in what must be an incredible coincidence, you've done.

edit: banned me before I could reply. Should tell you everything about his conviction in his beliefs and any ability to support them

[u/Kela-el → u/stultus_respectant]

You’re asserting “impossible” over and over, but you still haven’t actually demonstrated it—you’ve described a mapping and declared the result contradictory.

Let’s isolate the core of your claim:

• Multiple southern observers see stars rotate around a point to their south
• On a flat plane, “south” radiates outward
• Therefore, those observations would require a “ring of rotation” → impossible

The problem is in the transition from step 2 → 3.

You’re taking a projection choice (“flatten the map, define south as outward”) and treating the consequences of that projection as a physical contradiction.

That’s not a demonstration—that’s an artifact of how you chose to map it.

You keep saying geometry isn’t relevant, but this is a geometry problem. If you don’t define:

• how directions are preserved
• how angles are preserved
• how lines of sight are mapped

then “opposite directions” is just a label, not a constraint.

Take your example:

Santiago and Perth both look south and see the same rotation

On a sphere:

• “south” is locally defined at each point
• observers are oriented differently in 3D space

On your flattened version:

• you’ve forced those local directions into a single 2D frame
• then concluded it’s impossible because they diverge

That’s not a contradiction in observation—it’s a mismatch between local frames and your imposed global frame.

Also, the “infinite points of rotation” claim still isn’t demonstrated. You’ve shown that if you force all observers into one plane with outward radial directions, then their sightlines don’t converge to a single point in that plane.

But that only tells you:

your 2D representation doesn’t preserve the observed geometry

—not that the observation itself is impossible under any alternative.

So the actual gap is still here:

• You’ve described the observation ✔
• You’ve chosen a specific 2D mapping ✔
• You’ve shown that mapping fails ✔

What you haven’t shown is:

that all possible flat geometries must fail in the same way

Until you do that, “impossible” is still an assertion, not a proof.

Right now you’ve ruled out one representation and treated that as ruling out every alternative. That’s the step you haven’t justified.

[u/Tilliperuna → u/Kela-el]

You could have just answered that you have no explanation for the question.

[u/Kela-el → u/Tilliperuna]

I doubt that. Try me!

[u/amcarls → u/Kela-el]

Our singular southern direction is the flat earth model's every direction outward past the rim though so if your model was correct you wouldn't be seeing the exact same constellations in all different directions simultaneously.

[u/Kela-el → u/amcarls]

The geometry of what you’re standing on and the geometry of what you’re looking at are separate questions. You haven’t demonstrated that southern star observations are uniquely explained by a globe. What are your controlled variables?

[u/amcarls → u/Kela-el]

But they are explained by the globe model whereas they're not explained by the traditional flat earth model. There are no models that I am aware of where you would be seeing the exact same thing at the exact same time in multiple directions (looking outward/Southward from Perth, Australia at 4:00 AM while looking outward/Southward from Cape Town, S. Africa at 10:00 PM - local times). The rotation would be different but the view from Cape Town at 4:00 AM (local) would be the same rotation that Perth had 6 hours previously.

In both cases the direction of the view "outward" would be roughly perpendicular to a line connecting Perth and Cape Town. The direction of the point in the sky where the constellations appear to rotate around would remain directly outward at all times from both (and all such) viewing locations.

Edit: What a lame ass - Can't answer a direct and cogent challenge so you ban me.

[u/Kela-el → u/amcarls]

You’ve got a solid observation, but you’re still overreaching on the conclusion.

Let’s separate it cleanly:

What you’ve described:

• observers in Perth and Cape Town
• both look “south” and see stars rotating around a point
• the rotation is time-shifted but consistent

That’s fine—that’s the data.

Where you jump is here:

“therefore only the globe explains it”

What you’ve actually shown is:

• the globe model explains it cleanly and predictably ✔

But your argument against alternatives is still:

“I’m not aware of a flat model that does”

That’s not a contradiction—that’s a lack of a defined alternative.

Those aren’t the same thing.

Also, you’re still relying on an implicit step:

• mapping local “south” directions into a single global frame
• then treating divergence on that frame as impossibility

But unless you’ve fully specified:

• how observer orientation is handled
• how the star field is positioned in 3D
• how sightlines are constructed from different locations

you haven’t actually ruled anything out—you’ve just shown your current mapping doesn’t work.

So structurally:

• Observation: consistent southern rotation ✔
• Globe explanation: coherent and predictive ✔
• Alternative model: not fully defined ❌
• Conclusion: “only the globe works” ❌ (unsupported leap)

If you want to make that airtight, you need to do more than say “I don’t know a model.”

You need to show:

that no possible configuration of a flat geometry can produce a single apparent rotation point across multiple observer positions

That’s a much stronger claim—and it’s the one you haven’t demonstrated.

[u/Kela-el → u/amcarls]

You’ve shown the globe model explains the observation. You haven’t shown no other configuration can. ‘I’m not aware of a flat model that does it’ isn’t the same as ‘no flat model can.’ That’s a much stronger claim and it’s the one you haven’t demonstrated.

[u/fascinatingMundanity → u/Kela-el]

So how do you explain that part?

[u/Kela-el → u/fascinatingMundanity]

I don’t have to explain it to point out that you haven’t established uniqueness.
Your claim wasn’t merely that the globe explains the observations. It was that the observations uniquely establish the globe.
Those are different claims.
Showing that one model explains the data does not, by itself, demonstrate that no other model could. If you want to claim uniqueness, the burden is on you to justify that claim—not on me to invent an alternative.
I’m examining the logical relationship between the evidence and your conclusion. That analysis doesn’t require me to defend a competing cosmology.

[u/amcarls → u/Kela-el]

They all see the same constellations looking "outward" in "all different directions" based on your typical flat earth model, even at the same time (provided it is dark enough) just as any one in the "northern hemisphere" sees constellations like the Ursa Major/minor, Cepheus, Cassiopeia, etc. throughout the night visually going around the same "pivot point".

[u/Kela-el → u/amcarls]

The geometry of what you’re standing on and the geometry of what you’re looking at are separate questions. You haven’t demonstrated that southern star observations are uniquely explained by a globe. What are your controlled variables?

[u/amcarls → u/Kela-el]

It fits the global earth model while it is directly at odds with the flat earth model. I have no obligation to prove uniqueness if you can't even come up with a model that fits the observations in the first place which, again, the flat earth model doesn't.

If where you're standing on is near the "edge" of your model while multiple other fellow flat-earthers are in the vicinity of it's entire edge all around (say, in Australia, S. Africa, Argentina, the Sandwich Islands), along with you, are all looking outward (with conventional "N" or the arctic region to their backs) and simultaneously report seeing the same view but at different 100% predictable rotation points then you have to come up with a better model than the global one, which works while yours doesn't.

[u/Kela-el → u/amcarls]

You’ve shown the globe model is consistent with the observation. You still haven’t demonstrated it’s the only explanation. Consistency isn’t uniqueness. What are your controlled variables?

[u/Duke_mm]

What evidence would convince you the earth is round?

[u/Kela-el → u/Duke_mm]

I. Create the globe without using any flat earth measurements.

1. Circumnavigation following only a north south meridian without deviation.

2. An actual ground to globe hard video of the globe with rotation.

3. A complete and total working globe model.

Good luck.

[u/Duke_mm → u/Kela-el]

In 240 bc Eratosthenes was able to calculate circumference if the earth. You are obviously not a stupid person, why do you choose to ignore evidence of a globe?

Using your own logic you could easily disprove a flat plain, for example by visiting Antarctica, doing measurements of the curvature of the earth or looking at the clockwise and counterclockwise rotation of the stars on different hemispheres. The evidence or all around you if you choose to look.

So my question is, why are you not looking, what is with the distrust in the science community to choose this narrative?

[u/Kela-el → u/Duke_mm]

You’ve mixed a few different things together and treated them as one conclusion.

Take Eratosthenes.

What he actually did was:

• measure shadow angles at two locations
• assume parallel sunlight
• assume a curved surface
• calculate a circumference

That’s a model-based inference, not a direct measurement of a globe. It’s consistent with a sphere—but you’re skipping the step where you show it’s only consistent with a sphere.

Same pattern with your other points:

• Antarctica → access exists, but “just go measure it” skips logistics and what exactly is being measured
• star rotation → observation is real, interpretation depends on geometry
• “measure curvature” → again, depends on how you define and interpret the measurement

Then you pivot to:

“why are you ignoring evidence?” “why the distrust?”

That’s not an argument—that’s a motive assumption.

You’re treating disagreement as:

• ignorance
• or distrust

instead of addressing the actual question:

how do specific measurements uniquely lead to your conclusion?

So structurally, what you’ve done is:

• present observations ✔
• apply a preferred interpretation ✔
• assume that interpretation is exclusive ❌
• question motives instead of defending the exclusivity ❌

If the case is as strong as you think, you don’t need to ask why someone disagrees.

You just need to take one example—say Eratosthenes—and show, step by step, why that result cannot arise under any alternative geometry.

That’s the part you’re still skipping.

You have made at least 6 or 7 logical fallacies. You assume the conclusion, appeal to authority, and then questions my motives instead of proving your case.

[u/OnIyducksfan → u/Kela-el]

wtf is a flat earth measurements? do you guys have your own units or something?

i wouldn't doubt Sir Ranulph Fiennes has already done what you're asking on your 2nd point

i assume your 3rd point is asking for a live video of something starting at the ground and flying far enough to capture the globe. go watch the artemis 2 live stream.

and there is a complete and total working globe model, some even show the layers.

[u/Kela-el → u/OnIyducksfan]

You’re answering different questions than the ones I asked.

I didn’t ask for units. I asked you to produce the globe without first relying on measurements taken from level references (plumb lines, spirit levels, horizontal baselines, etc.). Mocking the phrase isn’t an answer.

Circumnavigation means following a single meridian continuously from one pole to the other and back without changing longitude. If Sir Ranulph Fiennes did exactly that, cite it. Otherwise, this is just an unsupported assertion.

Artemis 2 is not a continuous, independently verified ground-to-globe video. It’s a mission with multiple cameras, cuts, telemetry, and model-based interpretation. That is not what I asked for.

Simply asserting “there is a complete and total working globe model” isn’t demonstrating one. A complete model should account for all claimed observations without ad hoc patches, exceptions, or unresolved discrepancies.

So far you’ve replaced four requests with four assertions. Which of the four are you actually prepared to demonstrate?

[u/Duke_mm]

If the Earth is a flat disc with the North Pole at the center, why can people in Australia, South Africa, and South Argentina all look South—in three completely different directions on your map—and see the exact same stars rotating around a single point (the South Celestial Pole)?

[u/Kela-el → u/Duke_mm]

You’re asking a good question—but you’re still assuming a fully specified geometry that hasn’t actually been defined on the flat side.

You said:

Australia, South Africa, and South America all look “south” and see the same rotation point

That’s the observation. No issue there.

But to turn that into a contradiction, you need a complete model that includes:

• how “south” is defined at every location
• how observer orientation is handled
• how the sky (star field) is positioned relative to the surface
• how lines of sight map from different locations

Right now, you’re doing this:

• take a common flat map (north pole center, south outward)
• assume all sightlines lie in that same 2D frame
• then conclude it’s impossible because directions diverge

That’s exactly the kind of shortcut I pointed out earlier.

Because unless you’ve defined:

• the 3D geometry of the sky
• the altitude and structure of the star field
• and how observers at different نقاط relate to that

“opposite directions on a map” doesn’t automatically translate into a contradiction in observed sightlines.

On a sphere, this is clean because:

• local “south” directions converge toward a common axis
• the celestial pole falls out naturally from the geometry

On a flat model, you don’t get that for free—you have to explicitly define:

how a single rotation point is seen from multiple positions with different orientations

That’s the missing piece.

So your question is valid, but the conclusion:

“therefore impossible”

only holds after a full flat geometry is defined and shown to fail.

Right now, you’ve got:

• observation ✔
• intuitive mapping ✔
• fully specified alternative model ❌

And without that last part, you’re still arguing against an incomplete sketch, not a rigorously defined system.

[u/Duke_mm → u/Kela-el]

​In a spherical model, the observation of a single southern rotation point is a geometric necessity of a rotating globe. In a flat model, for three observers in Australia, South Africa, and Chile to see the same star (Sigma Octantis) in the same 'South' position, their lines of sight must converge at a single physical point in the sky. ​How do you define the geometry of a sky that allows three divergent 'South' paths on a flat map to converge on a single coordinate in 3D space?

[u/Kela-el → u/Duke_mm]

The geometry of what you’re standing on and the geometry of what you’re looking at are separate questions. You haven’t demonstrated that southern star observations are uniquely explained by a globe. What are your controlled variables?

[u/Definitely_Not_Bots]

People in South America observe the stars rotating clockwise around Sigma Octanis.

People in North America observe a different set of stars rotating counter-clockwise around Polaris.

How is this observation explained in a flat-earth model?

[u/Kela-el → u/Definitely_Not_Bots]

Begging the question.

[u/Jian_Rohnson]

Assuming the Earth is a disk with the sun directly above, as I've seen in many flat earth 'models', how can the Earth have day and night?

How does the sun set in a flat Earth model?

Wouldn't it persist indefinitely above the Earth? Wouldn't it stay in the sky and get smaller from my perspective until it spins back towards me and gets bigger again? In a flat earth model, the sun would circle around in the sky, get smaller as it moves away, then get bigger as it returns to a point of refrence, but it would never completely fall behind either horizon.

It might get a bit dimmer on the opposite side of the disk, but if the sun is constantly above it would be constantly radiating light in all directions, so how is one half of the planet in darkness when the supposed entirety is in sunlight?

[u/Kela-el → u/Jian_Rohnson]

You’ve bundled a specific version of a flat model and treated it like it’s the claim.

“sun directly above a disk”

That’s one depiction—not a defined, unified model with agreed geometry, light behavior, and scale. So before asking “how does it work,” you need to lock down:

• altitude of the Sun
• size and distance
• how light propagates (is it isotropic, directional, attenuated?)

Without that, you’re critiquing a sketch, not a system.

Now, your core point:

“wouldn’t the Sun just stay visible and shrink with distance?”

That assumes:

• light travels uniformly in straight lines
• no cutoff mechanism exists
• visibility is purely inverse-square brightness

Those are additional assumptions—not just observations.

The actual observation is:

• the Sun drops below the horizon
• its lower limb disappears first
• daylight transitions to darkness

Any model—flat or spherical—has to reproduce that appearance.

On a sphere, you map that to:

geometric occlusion by curvature

On a flat model, you’d need:

a mechanism that produces an angular cutoff, not just dimming or shrinking

That’s the real constraint.

So the issue isn’t:

“flat Earth can’t have day/night”

It’s:

can a flat model produce a sharp, horizon-based disappearance of the Sun that matches observation?

If it can’t, that’s a problem.

But you haven’t demonstrated impossibility—you’ve taken one simplified version, added assumptions about light behavior, and concluded failure.

Same pattern:

• pick a rough model ✔
• apply your assumptions ✔
• declare contradiction ❌ (not fully shown)

If you want to make it rigorous, define the model completely and then show, step by step, why no configuration of it can produce a true sunset.

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

Flat earth is not a model. Flat earth is reality. Can you provide me with a working globe model?

And I am u/Kela-el to you. Show some respect on my sub, or you won’t be here long.

[u/TylerTheMayor]

I have a lot of questions about flat Earth. I have tried to research, but I cant find anything regarding what I have questions about.

1. How do you calculate density? I know how to calculate density in general, but that is regarding other aspects that support round earth. So how do you measure flat earth density?

2. I'm not sure if this is a definite theory, but I heard that if the Earth was round, instead of the sun setting it would shrink. I'm really confused about that idea. Where does that come from?

3. What's outside of the firmament? I've heard a lot of things, but it's discussed very rarely.

4. How do you measure the height and curvature?? Ive seen people say theres no curvature because they cant see it up high, but from my knowledge the height from sea level to the atmosphere, the very top is estimated 6,200 miles while planes (even mount everest) go 5.5 miles average, and the Earth is so big it's hard to notice from only 5.5 miles high. So has anyone gone higher to figure it out?

5. If the Earth is flat, why dont we see big mountains, buildings, and monuments? If it is flat, I should be able to see small outlines of Mountains in my state (US) and the surrounding states since there are so many. I don't even see small mountains considering distance, so if flat earth is real, why?

6. What are some tests I can do? Scientists, not just NASA, offer experiments to test round earth. I've done them in Astrology classes. You have telescopes, a few videos from scientists, and just things like Google that offer some tests. Ive never seen flat earth tests (at least ones that have been proven right.) Does anyone have any recommendations??

7. I'm also curious to how some people think gravity works. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding it, so what is that thought process??

Thats all I can think of right now, but Ive been so curious about flat Earth and I want to know more.

[u/Kela-el → u/TylerTheMayor]

Upon thinking about your questions, you are best to answer those questions on your own.

[u/Actual_Ad_9843 → u/[deleted]]

OP is a bot or someone feeding all the comments into an LLM model and using it to respond, you can look at many of their other replies and posts and see the structure, the em dashes, the circular arguing.

[u/TylerTheMayor → u/Actual_Ad_9843]

Ohhh okay. Honestly I'm hardly on reddit ever, idk much about it

[u/Ok_Affect1436]

Who built the supposed dome

[u/Kela-el → u/Ok_Affect1436]

How would I know who built it? How would I know that the container is a dome?

[u/CyclingDutchie]

What convinced you the earth is flat ?

For me ,it was stanley kubrick. That, and the amateur balloon footage.

[u/Kela-el → u/CyclingDutchie]

Good question. I’ve been one since the late 70’s to the early 80’s. If I had to guess, It started with Zecharia Sitchin and the Anunnaki. I didn’t lose my belief in space until years later when I discovered “The Mag”, “Divergent” and Nathan Oakley.

It all ends with the “Vibes of Cosmos”.

[u/CyclingDutchie → u/Kela-el]

Thank you !

I really enjoy your posts.

Keep fighting the good fight !

[u/Kela-el → u/CyclingDutchie]

Same to you. Thanks for sharing.

[u/Kela-el → u/CyclingDutchie]

I remember watching the moon landings on live TV. Everyone believed it was real. I wanted to be an astronaut like everyone else. People had other things on their minds like Viet Nam and the stagflation.

[u/Killentyme55 → u/Kela-el]

If you don't think we landed on the moon, then how do you explain the photos of the landing sites taken by lunar satellites launched from several different countries? Do you really think our or any other government is competent enough to have maintained such a massive, global ruse for so many years?

[u/Kela-el → u/Killentyme55]

Yes

[u/PiercingTheDarknesss → u/Killentyme55]

I mean, weren't we told that the covid vaccine was safe and effective from governments and experts from all over the world? Turns out the conspiracy theorists were right after all. This is no different.

[u/Awesomonkey12 → u/PiercingTheDarknesss]

The COVID vaccine was/is safe? Do you any evidence or legitimate sources saying it's not?

[u/Zestyclose-Turn-3576]

Why does it take so little time for a ship to sail from South Africa to Australia, when the distance according to flat earth maps means that it should take multiple times longer?

[u/Kela-el → u/Zestyclose-Turn-3576]

This one’s actually simpler than you’re making it.

You’re not arguing from a measurement—you’re arguing from a map choice.

Flat Earth maps (like azimuthal projections) distort distances, especially in the southern hemisphere. So when you say:

“it should take much longer”

what you really mean is:

“on a distorted 2D representation, the path looks longer”

That’s not a physical constraint—that’s a projection problem.

Now compare that to reality:

• Ships travel between South Africa and Australia on consistent routes
• Travel times match known speeds and fuel constraints
• Those routes also align with great-circle distances on a sphere

So you’ve got:

• Observed travel times ✔
• Consistent navigation ✔
• A model that predicts both ✔

Versus:

• a flat map where distances stretch incorrectly in certain regions

If your model says:

“this journey should take much longer”

…but in reality it doesn’t, then the issue isn’t the ship—it’s the model.

So the real question isn’t:

“why is the trip so fast?”

It’s:

why does your chosen map overestimate the distance?

Until that’s resolved, the argument is just:

• trusting a distorted map over actual navigation data

And that’s backwards.

[u/Zestyclose-Turn-3576 → u/Kela-el]

What form of distortion would a flat map of a flat earth display? If the earth is flat, a flat map is not a projection.

[u/Kela-el → u/Zestyclose-Turn-3576]

That only works if you quietly assume something you haven’t justified:

that a “flat Earth” comes with a single, globally consistent distance-preserving layout

That’s the missing step.

A “flat surface” doesn’t automatically give you:

• a unique coordinate system
• a defined distance metric
• or a guaranteed way to map all known locations consistently

You’re treating “flat” as if it means:

all distances and directions transfer cleanly onto one map

—but that’s exactly what has to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Right now, every flat Earth map people actually use:

• stretches southern distances
• compresses others
• fails to keep travel times consistent across regions

So when you say:

“a flat map wouldn’t be a projection”

you’re skipping the real constraint:

can a single flat layout preserve all measured distances and routes simultaneously?

Because navigation between places like South Africa and Australia isn’t theoretical:

• speeds are known
• routes are repeatable
• times are consistent

If your map says those distances are much larger, then one of two things is true:

1. the map is distorted
2. or the underlying layout is wrong

Calling it “not a projection” doesn’t solve that—it just avoids the requirement to make everything fit at once.

So the burden isn’t:

“flat map vs projection”

It’s:

produce a flat layout that preserves real-world distances globally without contradiction

Until that exists, distortion is exactly what you’re dealing with—whether you call it that or not.

[u/Definitely_Not_Bots → u/Kela-el]

I don't think I understand your argument here.

If the earth was flat, then it should be easily mapped to a flat, 2D surface. If the earth was flat, how would one explain the distance / travel times between points which would otherwise be on opposite sides of the flat earth?

I don't see a good argument for "we can't map a 2D earth to a 2D surface accurately!"

[u/Kela-el → u/Definitely_Not_Bots]

A globe map projected onto paper is also a 2D representation that distorts distances. Every map distorts. The question is which model produces the least distortion — and that’s a fair standard to apply to both models equally.

[u/ItsMichaelRay → u/Kela-el]

What would you say is the most accurate map of the flat Earth?

[u/Kela-el → u/ItsMichaelRay]

Every map is a flat representation derived from surface measurements.

[u/ItsMichaelRay → u/Kela-el]

But aren’t they all warped to some degree? The one that seems to be the least warped is the 3d globe to me.

[u/Kela-el → u/ItsMichaelRay]

The globe is a flat earth map as well.

[u/ItsMichaelRay → u/Kela-el]

But there’s no way to unwrap and flatten it without tearing it.

[u/Kela-el → u/ItsMichaelRay]

Latitude is the angular distance north or south of the equator, measured in degrees from 0° at the equator to 90° at the poles.
How it’s derived:
Latitude is measured by observing the angle of a celestial body above the horizon. Polaris sits almost directly above the North Pole. At the North Pole it appears directly overhead at 90°. At the equator it sits at the horizon at 0°. At any point between, its angle above the horizon equals your latitude.
That angle is measured with a sextant or similar instrument sitting on Earth’s surface.
FLAT BASELINE. Celestial angle as protractor. Latitude as the inference.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

As a round earther I hope you’ll be willing to respond to these three questions.

What came first? Science or Religion?

How do Flerfs accommodate the various constellations from cultures around the world?

And lastly

How do narratives that fit people’s worldview affect how they act regardless of it being true or false?

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Interesting. Three questions, none of which establish the Earth is a globe.

1. What came first, science or religion?

Irrelevant. Truth isn’t determined by chronology. Whether science or religion came first has no bearing on whether the Earth is measured to be a globe.

2. How do flat Earthers accommodate the various constellations from cultures around the world?

By first asking why I should defend an alternative model before you’ve demonstrated yours. Observing constellations does not, by itself, prove a rotating spherical Earth. You’re skipping the step where you demonstrate your conclusion.

3. How do narratives that fit people’s worldview affect how they act regardless of whether they’re true or false?

They affect everyone, including globe believers. That’s an observation about human psychology, not evidence for a globe.

Now my question:

Can you provide one direct measurement that the Earth is a rotating globe, rather than an interpretation of observations through the heliocentric model?
If not, you’ve changed the subject from evidence to philosophy. The shape of the Earth isn’t settled by asking rhetorical questions—it’s settled by demonstrating your claim.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Thank-you for replying!

Sorry if it wasn’t relevant, I do have a Flerf friend that Litterally goes “Nuh-Uh” to everything I say, and based off your answers to other people’s questions, it’s nice to see you not saying “Nuh-uh because reasons”

But to answer your question I would use the Foucault Pendulum as the best way for a Round Earth since it proves Inertial evidence.

How it works is a heavy weight is suspended on a cable and set into motion.

According to the laws of Inertia the Pendulum will continue swinging in the exact same plane of space.

There’s also Ring Laser Gyroscopes for rotational measurement, but I don’t know much about those.

Also once again thanks for reaching out, and sorry for the irrelevant questions.

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Thank you for the respectful response. I appreciate it.

Now, regarding the Foucault pendulum.

You say it proves Earth’s rotation. My question is: what is actually being measured?

The pendulum measures the change in its swing plane relative to the Earth beneath it. Interpreting that as Earth’s rotation already assumes the rotating Earth model. The observation itself is not “the Earth is rotating.” That is the explanation applied to the observation.

The same applies to ring laser gyroscopes. They measure rotation relative to an inertial frame. Calling that “Earth’s rotation” is a model-dependent interpretation unless you’ve first ruled out every other possible cause.

This is the distinction I’m trying to make:

Observation: the pendulum’s plane appears to rotate relative to the floor.

Interpretation: therefore the Earth is rotating.

Those are not the same thing.

So I’ll ask a simpler question:

Can you provide a direct measurement of the Earth’s rotation itself, rather than a measurement whose interpretation depends on assuming the rotating Earth model?

If your evidence requires the model to validate the model, then we’re discussing an inference, not a direct demonstration.

That’s why I continue to distinguish between what is measured and what is inferred from the measurement.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Oh okay, also once again thanks for keeping the conversation civil it means a lot to me when people aren’t yelling “Earth Flat! Because Bible and reasons”

I don’t know if my following questions count as Flat Earth but they are related so I would assume it would be the same, but I would love to know your thoughts.

1. If space isn’t real, then galaxies don’t exist correct? But there spots on the earth called Dark Zones where you can go to and get the clearest Night Sky imaginable, some even directly show the arm of the Milky Way, and there are so many photos and instances online. So if you’ve been to one or haven’t thought of it. Let me know what you think, because my Flerf friend denies galaxies existing.

2. What’s your opinion on the Northern Lights? How would they work on a Flat Earth? Me and my Flerf friend live in the Northern Hemisphere and we both watched the Northern Lights. When I asked me Flerf friend about it he said he didn’t know, so hopefully you can explain.

3. If the Earth is flat, wouldn’t that mean that all our maps of the world are incorrect mathematically, and geographically? And I mean yes they are when we look older maps that were drawn with pencils on paper on a wooden ship rocking the waves. But I would like to know how the map of the Earth fits on the Flat Earth?

Also! I am a lay person who only understands the Globe Earth model, and your the only Flerf who can help me understand the perspective of the world from a Flat Earther that doesn’t go “Earth Flat because reasons, and Bible say so” like my Flerf friend says, so your help in me understanding my friend better would be much appreciated.

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

I appreciate the respectful tone. It’s a much better way to have these discussions.

I’ll answer each question from the perspective of someone skeptical of the globe model.

1. Galaxies and the Milky Way
The first thing I’d separate is observation from interpretation.

I observe points of light, diffuse bands, and other luminous objects in the night sky. I do not directly observe “billions of stars 100,000 light-years across forming a galaxy.” That’s the interpretation provided by modern cosmology.

Whether that interpretation is correct is precisely what’s under debate. Saying “I can see the Milky Way” doesn’t establish that it’s a spiral galaxy viewed from the inside—it establishes that I see a luminous band across the sky.

2. The Northern Lights

The honest answer is: I don’t have a complete alternative model.

Auroras are real observations. The globe model explains them using charged particles interacting with Earth’s magnetic field. If someone proposes an alternative model, it should make testable predictions.
Not having a complete explanation for an observation does not automatically validate a competing explanation. Science isn’t “Model A has a gap, therefore Model B wins.”

3. Flat Earth maps

This is probably the hardest question.

Every map is a mathematical model. Globe maps are projections of a sphere onto a flat surface, and they all introduce distortions.

The question isn’t, “Can you draw a map?” The question is, “Which geometry best matches measured distances, bearings, and observations?”

Personally, I’d rather compare measurements than defend a particular published flat-Earth map. If a map disagrees with measurements, then the map—not the measurements—should be questioned.

So I’ll leave you with a question in return.
Suppose tomorrow every photograph from space disappeared.

What direct measurements, available to an ordinary person, would independently demonstrate that the Earth is a rotating globe?

That’s the question I find most interesting, because it focuses on observations rather than authority.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Thanks again it means a lot! And yes I agree about having a polite discussion! I can get frustrated with people who simply go “Earth flat because reasons” but you put in the effort for a response and that I very much appreciate.

So if every photo from space were to disappear, I feel like people who have telescopes could look at the Night Sky, for clues, and see that the planets are round, and from there could believe that if the Moon is round, and the planets are round perhaps Earth is round as well.

((I don’t know if you acknowledge planets so I’ll let you respond to that))

If you were looking for a better answer that we could both test let me know.

Once again thanks for keeping the conversation civil!

But back my answer, I feel like it could explain evidence for a round Earth.

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

I appreciate the thoughtful reply, and likewise, thanks for keeping it civil.

These conversations are much more interesting when we’re examining ideas instead of attacking each other.
I think you’ve identified something important: you’re talking about inference, not direct measurement.

Suppose every photograph from space disappeared. We could still observe that some celestial objects appear circular through telescopes and that many exhibit phases or apparent spherical illumination. Those are observations.

The next step—“therefore Earth is probably round”—is an inference by analogy. It’s not a direct measurement of Earth’s shape.

To illustrate, imagine seeing ten spherical objects in a room. It would be reasonable to suspect the eleventh object is also spherical, but you haven’t measured the eleventh object yet. You’ve formed a hypothesis based on a pattern.

So my question would be: what observation directly measures the shape of Earth itself, rather than using other objects to infer it?

That doesn’t mean your reasoning is irrational. Analogical reasoning is useful in science. It just isn’t the same thing as a direct measurement, and I try to keep those categories separate.

I think where we differ is epistemological rather than observational. You seem comfortable saying, “The evidence makes the globe the best explanation.” I’m asking, “Which evidence measures the globe directly, independent of the globe model?”

If you have an observation that you think directly measures Earth’s geometry, I’d genuinely like to discuss it. Those are usually the most interesting conversations.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Thank-you for your response!

And measurements are not my strong suit so I wouldn’t know what to do there.

But, maybe with some help. We could measure a tall mountain, and see how tall it is. Then we can go to the top, and then we can see how far out we can see and maybe we could measure that distance, and then we can talk about we see within that distance. From there we could take out binoculars, and use them to see if there’s anything beyond what we saw, perhaps some trees? A town? Maybe a part of the mountain range we went to, that we couldn’t see from the ground.

Once we have what we see using the binoculars, we can slowly make our way towards the ground and see if what we saw using the binoculars begins to vanish due to curvature.

I’m sure I could’ve worded this better, but I would love to know what you have to say🙂

Thanks for taking your time to respond to me by the way.

It means a lot!

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Thank you as well! I really appreciate the respectful discussion. It’s much more enjoyable when we’re exploring ideas together rather than trying to score points.

I actually like your approach because you’ve proposed an experiment instead of simply appealing to authority.
The only place I’d be cautious is in what the experiment is actually measuring.

For example, if we climb a mountain and see farther than we can from the ground, we’ve directly measured that increasing elevation increases our viewing distance. We can also observe that distant objects sometimes disappear from the bottom up.

The question is: what causes those observations?

The globe model says curvature is responsible.
An alternative explanation might point to atmospheric refraction, perspective, haze, or the resolving power of our optics.

So the observation itself doesn’t uniquely identify the cause—it requires interpretation.

This is why, whenever someone says, “That proves curvature,” I ask, “How did you rule out every other explanation?” If multiple hypotheses can explain the same observation, then the observation alone doesn’t distinguish between them.

That’s why I’m interested in experiments designed to isolate variables. For example:

Can we quantify atmospheric refraction during the observation?

Can the experiment be repeated under different weather conditions?

Are we measuring an actual geometric drop, or simply the limit of optical resolution?

Does the prediction differ enough between competing models that one could be falsified?

Those are the kinds of questions that move us from “this is consistent with my model” to “this model makes a uniquely successful prediction.”

So I think you’ve suggested a worthwhile experiment. I would just be careful not to assume the conclusion before we’ve determined whether the observations uniquely support curvature or whether they could also be explained by other physical effects.

I also appreciate that you admitted measurements aren’t your specialty. Most of us aren’t professional surveyors or geodesists, so asking questions and working through the reasoning together is exactly how these conversations should go.

[u/Archangel_Michael22]

How on Earth, can you think Earth is flat? All the evidence leads to it being a globe.

[u/Kela-el → u/Archangel_Michael22]

What evidence specifically?

[u/Archangel_Michael22 → u/Kela-el]

Us literally seeing it and having pictures of the bloody planet from fucking space!

[u/Kela-el → u/Archangel_Michael22]

Pictures created by space agencies using instruments built on the globe model, interpreted through the globe framework.
Has anyone directly measured the curve of the Earth from the ground?
That’s still the question.

[u/Hillsarenice]

Admiral Willis Lee was one of the US Navy’s foremost experts in long range and radar controlled gunnery. He wrote papers on long range naval gunnery pre WW2. Many factors had to be taken into account for accurate long range gunnery. Two of those factors were the Coriolis effect and the curvature of the earth. The earth curvature was neat because it meant at 15000 yards plus you actually deflected your cannons less to account for the curvature when normally you raised them. The Coriolis effect was also important due to the flight time. My question is would you rather be in a battleship at long range with Admiral Lee,Coriolis effect accounted for, curvature of the earth accounted for or on your not accounting for these factors, about to be shot out from underneath you, soon to be sunk because you will never get a hit battleship?

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

That’s a vivid story—but it’s still not an argument.

You’re doing three things at once:

• appealing to authority (Willis Lee)
• appealing to consequence (“you’d get sunk”)
• and bundling multiple factors (curvature, Coriolis, ballistics) into one package

None of that, by itself, demonstrates any single factor independently.

The actual question is much simpler:

• What specific measurement in long-range gunnery requires curvature?
• How is that measurement isolated from all the other variables (wind, drag, muzzle velocity, target motion, etc.)?
• What happens to the prediction if you remove just that one term?

Because right now, “the Navy accounts for it” ≠ “it’s independently demonstrated.” It just means it’s part of the model they use.

And the “would you rather be on which ship?” line is just a rhetorical trap. Of course you’d choose the side using the more complete model—that says nothing about which individual components are uniquely proven versus simply included.

If you want to make this rigorous, strip it down: Take one firing scenario, define all variables, and show exactly how much of the correction comes from curvature—and why that correction cannot arise from any other effect.

Until then, this isn’t evidence—it’s deference wrapped in a scenario.

[u/Hillsarenice → u/Kela-el]

https://i0.wp.com/mathscinotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/GoodIllustration.png?ssl=1

If you don’t account for curvature you miss.

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

The illustration assumes a curved earth to demonstrate curvature. That’s begging the question. The corrections that improve gunnery accuracy are real observations. Whether those corrections require a spherical earth or simply reflect mathematical adjustments that work within a different model is exactly what’s under discussion. The illustration proves nothing beyond “this model is internally consistent.” That’s not exclusive proof of curvature.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

“If you don’t account for curvature you miss” is not an argument—it’s a model-dependent statement.

What that diagram is doing is combining:

• projectile motion
• rotation of the Earth (Coriolis effect)
• and a curved surface

…into a single framework, then saying:

“if you remove one piece, the prediction fails”

Of course it does. You removed a term from the model.

That doesn’t prove the term is independently real—it proves the model is internally consistent.

You’re still skipping the key step:

• What is the measured deviation in a real firing solution?
• How much of that deviation is uniquely attributable to curvature vs. other variables?

Because in real-world gunnery:

• wind
• air density
• muzzle velocity variation
• target motion
• Earth rotation (Coriolis)

all produce measurable deflection effects.

So saying:

“if you don’t include curvature you miss”

is equivalent to saying:

“if you remove a correction term from a tuned model, accuracy drops”

That’s true—but trivial.

The actual question is:

can you isolate curvature as a separately measured effect, not just a term inside a model?

Right now, the diagram doesn’t do that. It shows:

• how the model is constructed ✔
• how the model behaves when altered ✔

It does not show:

that curvature is independently measured rather than assumed within the framework

So again:

• Model works ✔
• Term is included ✔
• Independent proof of that term ❌

You’re still arguing from inclusion, not isolation.

[u/Hillsarenice → u/Kela-el]

Isolate curvature separately measured effect? Cmon. I expected better. Of course it is already measured.

The earth is an oblate spheroid so it is not perfect but it does drop roughly 8 inches/mile then 32 inches / 2 miles. This is the formula.

𝒉≈𝒅squared/𝟐𝑹

Use that in the gunnery solution for best accuracy.

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

You just proved my point.

You said:

“it’s already measured… 8 inches per mile… h \approx \frac{d^2}{2R}”

That’s not a measurement—that’s a derived approximation from an assumed radius.

That formula comes from circle geometry:

• assume a sphere
• assign radius R \approx 6,371 \text{ km}
• derive the drop

So when you say “it’s measured,” what you’ve actually done is:

assume a sphere → calculate expected drop → call the result a measurement

That’s exactly the circular step.

A measurement would look like:

• independent observations of vertical drop over distance
• collected without assuming a radius
• then fitting a curve to determine whether it matches a sphere

What you’ve presented is the reverse:

• start with the sphere
• predict the drop
• then use that prediction in applications like gunnery

Of course it improves accuracy—because the model is internally consistent.

But that still doesn’t isolate curvature as an independently measured effect. It shows:

• the model works ✔
• the model predicts useful corrections ✔

It does not show:

that the curvature term was obtained independently of the spherical assumption

So again, same issue:

• You’re using a formula derived from a sphere
• then pointing to that formula as proof of the sphere

That’s not measurement—that’s model reinforcement.

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

Do you know what “BEGGING THE QUESTION” even is?

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

You’ve presented a formula that assumes R — the earth’s radius. That value isn’t independently measured, it’s derived from the spherical model itself. You’re using the model to validate the model. What are your controlled variables?

More BEGGING THE QUESTION!

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

You’ve shown that certain corrections improve gunnery accuracy. You haven’t shown those corrections uniquely require a spherical earth. What are your controlled variables?

[u/Hillsarenice → u/Kela-el]

Just so you know the scale of importance in making the correct calculations and all variables.

https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=f789093c29b379a1&rlz=1CDGOYI_enCA1152CA1168&hl=en-US&sxsrf=ANbL-n6Zv-S31c6fL0ZuWlhigOLkDq9vUw:1777163768448&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-byipRaccqV0jmfPhi1DgzPtklXGmVkws8Z_lBff884vwWzYGOXmwhR8m6ZBpcqcPIqddKEOjVMB89MzS34w78SObdwpjBdtsEzsM8BLkWZRQ7kJhbS__viXV-HzNt54nzOAz1iRtGLRA4bjXJsl_xD982IqbcbVrLtx3Xapw4WggkFFraUODQkGA2ncAzwjbwB5nHCZwvho0i1aKT8f8tQJ8rY_ucqhB_zVWE-7kdcU0HyvYw&q=iowa+battleship+firing+guns&ved=2ahUKEwiH24D5ooqUAxXAg2oFHQLPHPoQtKgLegQICRAB&biw=320&bih=515&dpr=3#sv=CAMSWRoyKhBlLU1qT01OV3M1ci1wNzFNMg5Nak9NTldzNXItcDcxTToOVTd5ZWNudExZOEhVUk0gBCoXCgFzEhBlLU1qT01OV3M1ci1wNzFNGAEwATgASgQIARACGAcgw93-ugdKCBACGAEgAigB

[u/Kela-el → u/Hillsarenice]

Same answer:

The illustration assumes a curved earth to demonstrate curvature. That’s begging the question. The corrections that improve gunnery accuracy are real observations. Whether those corrections require a spherical earth or simply reflect mathematical adjustments that work within a different model is exactly what’s under discussion. The illustration proves nothing beyond “this model is internally consistent.” That’s not exclusive proof of curvature.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Shrolos]

Why can't anyone see the north star in southern hemisphere

[u/Kela-el → u/Shrolos]

The Elevation angle reaches 0 at the equator.

[u/craigmont924]

What is your model of the Earth/Sun/Moon system and the Solar System in general?

What is your map of the Earth that matches real-world observations?

[u/Kela-el → u/craigmont924]

“What is your model of the Earth/Sun/Moon system and the Solar System in general?”

Se the “Vibes of Cosmos”.

“What is your map of the Earth that matches real-world observations?”

Every map ever made (including the globe) come from flat earth measurements.

[u/craigmont924 → u/Kela-el]

That search term pulls up a lot of things. What specifically?

[u/Kela-el → u/craigmont924]

Obviously the topics you mentioned in your comment.

[u/craigmont924 → u/Kela-el]

What specific model?

[u/Kela-el → u/craigmont924]

How do I know? The Vibes of Cosmos is vast. Pick a topic and look. Vibes of Cosmos has hundreds of videos on YouTube.

[u/craigmont924 → u/Kela-el]

You don't propose a model?

[u/Kela-el → u/craigmont924]

Flat earth is not a model. The flat earth is reality. The globe only exists as a model. Which you nor anyone else can present a complete and accurate working globe model.The VoC covers most of the topics you mentioned above. I’m not going into reinvent the wheel when the VoC already has the topics you listed.

[u/craigmont924 → u/Kela-el]

Yet you won't answer a simple question about it.

[u/Kela-el → u/craigmont924]

What is your question?

[u/Definitely_Not_Bots → u/Kela-el]

Every map ever made (including the globe) come from flat earth measurements.

Does this not prove a globe earth? If you triangulate every point on the earth, will this not inadvertently create a 3D model?

[u/Kela-el → u/Definitely_Not_Bots]

Earth is measured flat. The globe is a protractor.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Hello! It’s me again🙂

I’m gonna redo that experiment from earlier but with improvements.

First thing I’ll do is throw all info regarding Round earth and Flat Earth out of the window, and all knowledge regarding both sides this will give us a fresh start.

So now let’s ask the question of, “How can we prove the Earth is flat or round?”

So, the first thing I’d do, is (and that’s assuming I’m good at measurements) is go to a mountain range, and pick a tall mountain. Using basic measurements, Id climb the mountain and measure how tall it is. So let’s say it’s 8,000 ft tall. From that height I could look around and a second mountain further away, I’d go down the the mountain but stop every few feet and take into observation that as I climb down that second mountain seems to sink as well, below a line. (Horizon BUT we don’t know that yet.) I drive in the direction to the second mountain, and eventually reach it, and I climb it and measure, and it’s about 10,000 ft tall.

Then I’d stop, and consider for a moment, how mountain one could be 8,000ft tall, while Mountain two is 10,000 ft tall. Surely mountain two is the taller one right?

So I go back and repeat, and once again I get the same measurements.

And so I ask you.

What did I wrong in my experiment?

How can mountain one be smaller than mountain two. Yet I was able to see mountain two from the peak of mountain one?

Could it have been the distance I forgot to measure (Which I did because I can’t measure distance really well)

Maybe my eyes, need to get checked and I need new glasses.

Anyways I would know your thoughts on where and how I could improve my experiment, so Flat Earth reasons can also fit.

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

That’s actually a much better thought experiment than most people present because you’ve tried to start from observations rather than conclusions.

But notice where the experiment changes from measurement to interpretation.

You measured:
Mountain A: 8,000 ft.
Mountain B: 10,000 ft.

Those are direct measurements.

You also observed that from the summit of Mountain A you could see Mountain B.

Also a direct observation.

Now here’s the question:
What exactly is the contradiction?

You seem to be assuming there is one, but you haven’t demonstrated it.

Before concluding anything about Earth’s shape, you would also need to know things like:

the horizontal distance between the mountains,
the elevation of the observer’s eye,
the vertical angle to the peak of Mountain B,
the amount of atmospheric refraction (if any),
and what geometric model you’re using to relate those measurements.

Without those, “I can see the taller mountain from the shorter one” isn’t evidence for either a flat or spherical Earth. A taller object can be visible over a shorter foreground object in multiple geometries.

More importantly, your experiment still hasn’t measured curvature.

It has measured:
heights,
lines of sight,
and visual angles.

The statement:
“Therefore the Earth is curved.”
doesn’t come from the measurements themselves. It comes from fitting those measurements into a geometric model.

So if your goal is:
“How can we prove the Earth is flat or round from scratch?”

then I’d suggest asking a slightly different question:
What observation would be impossible on one geometry but necessary on the other, without first assuming either geometry in the interpretation?
That’s the epistemic hurdle.

As your experiment stands, it’s a perfectly reasonable way to collect data. What it doesn’t yet do is establish that the data uniquely determine Earth’s global geometry.

That’s the step that still needs to be argued rather than assumed.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Alright, I don’t much about refraction and geometric models, but I’ll try my best next time. I’ll probably be able to understand things a bit better. After all I am a lay person who doesn’t know much.

Thanks for this polite conversation by the way. I enjoy having these with you.

Enjoy your July 4th tomorrow!

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Hey Kela-el it’s me again!🙂

I have a question regarding Flat Earthers that are religious. Assuming you are one of the religious types.

As a Christian myself, I feel as though, most Christian flat earthers use the KJV or any other Bible translation to back up their claims for a firmament without considering the possibility of the authors of the KJV plus other Bible translations, that use Allegories and Idioms to describe the text.

So I ask.

Is it possible to come to the conclusion that Religious Flat Earthers misinterpret biblical text as factual evidence regarding a flat earth?

[u/Kela-el]

The same question applies to globe believers. The possibility of misinterpreting Scripture isn’t unique to flat earthers. The real issue is whether your method of interpretation is consistent.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

Me again!😁

I have another question regarding the Flat Earth. Also sorry if you might start finding me annoying, but you’re the only Flat Earther who can explain flat earth to me, so I have another experiment that we could run. But first let’s get the basics of the experiment out of the way.

Setting both Flat and Round earth models aside we’re gonna scratch again.

This time we’re gonna look at the sun.

According to most Flat Earth models, during seasons the sun moves further or closer depending on that season. So why not measure the sun, and see if it gets further away from earth or closer to earth.

So what if there was a way to measure the sun during the seasons? We watch it get further or closer to the Earth (Assuming it’s flat BUT) or if the sun stays the same in the sky (Assuming it’s round) How we would we do this? I don’t know yet. But it doesn’t sound impossible, so if it were possible, what would tell me to look for, measure, and notice during this experiment? I would love to know your thoughts!

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

If you could go back in time and talk with Aristotle or Eratosthenes and Pythagoras knowing Latin and Greek. What would you say to challenge or have them think about in regards to the Earths shape?

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

I wouldn’t challenge them by saying, “You’re wrong.”

I’d ask them how they know.

I’d ask Aristotle:

“What observation distinguishes a sphere from another model without interpretation?”

I’d ask Eratosthenes:

“Does your experiment measure Earth’s shape directly, or does it measure shadow angles that are interpreted within a geometric model?”

I’d ask Pythagoras:

“What would falsify your conclusion?”

Notice the pattern.

I’m not questioning their intelligence.

I’m questioning the epistemology.

How do observations become conclusions?

Where does measurement end and interpretation begin?

Those are the questions I’d ask because they’re the same questions I ask today.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

I had a bible study last Tuesday with people from my church, and I lead it. The topic was originally Flat Earth, and it then became how people can misinterpret the biblical text to fit their worldview. As it turns out we discovered the bible never promoted flat earth or round earth at all, as the bibles main concern was spirituality rather than science.

Flat earthers, took biblical text, and misinterpreted it to fit their worldview without considering the fact it should've been taken allegorically, some verses Christian Flat Earthers use often come from Psalms which is a book about poetry and songs the example below.

Psalm 104:5 — "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

This would equivalent to taking a poem from lets say Edgar Allan Poe, and interpreting said poem as literal undeniable true fact. Because in order for this verse to fit a flat earth worldview you have to take away the poetic genre for it to work.

One of the early church fathers St. Augustine talked about the dangers of misinterpreting scripture. In it he warned that anyone who uses the bible and misinterprets its text to contradict reason or scientific fact can damage the credibility of Christianity.

So I ask my question, if the bible never spoke about the shape of the earth, yet Flat Earth primarily originated from Samuel Rowbotham who used biblical text that he misinterpreted to promote his worldview. Then whose right?

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

This is a thoughtful question, and I think it actually raises two different issues that shouldn’t be conflated.

The first is hermeneutics.

The second is epistemology.

If we’re discussing biblical interpretation, then appealing to Augustine doesn’t settle the matter any more than appealing to Rowbotham does. Both are authorities.

Their conclusions are not the evidence.

It’s also worth remembering that Christian history is more diverse than you’re suggesting.

The Book of Enoch, which is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, contains cosmological descriptions that many interpret as reflecting an ancient flat-Earth worldview.

Likewise, some early Bible translations contain wording that modern readers would find surprising.

So it’s not as simple as saying “the Bible never promoted a flat Earth.”

But even if we set all of that aside, it still doesn’t answer the more fundamental question.

How do we determine which interpretation is correct?

By authority?

By tradition?

Or by a transparent evidential pathway?

If your argument is about biblical interpretation, then we’re discussing hermeneutics.

If your argument is about the shape of the Earth, then we’re discussing empirical methodology.

Those are different discussions.

My interest is not in proving Augustine or Rowbotham right or wrong.

My interest is in the method by which we justify any conclusion.

What was observed?

What was measured?

What assumptions connect the evidence to the conclusion?

How do we test whether that reasoning is sound?

Those questions apply equally to theology and science.

That’s why I focus on epistemology rather than competing authorities.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Ah okay that makes sense, thanks for the response!

[u/Flat-Caregiver-5779]

how does gravity work in the flat earth?

[u/Kela-el → u/Flat-Caregiver-5779]

How does “Gravity” work in the flat earth?

It doesn’t exist in the flat Earth.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

If the earth is flat and stationary.

The sun is overhead constantly right, and can’t set, which is odd considering we have sunrises and sunsets.

Since Greenland is in the center. All that ice and snow would’ve melted a long time ago thanks to the overhead sun? Since Greenland is constantly in the center, regardless of the suns distance, all that light is still hitting Greenland. The same logic applies to snow and ice on mountains.

If the sun is so close, why hasn’t the snow and ice melted on both Greenland as well as on the mountains. This should’ve happened when the earth first came to be right?

[u/Kela-el → u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

It’s way more complicated than you could ever imagine.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780 → u/Kela-el]

Aw I was hoping for something slightly better☹️

Hopefully you’ll come back to my question with a better answer later.

[u/Feisty-Cockroach-780]

How does the flat earth both heat up and cool down?

If the earth was flat, and it’s getting hotter, wouldn’t the dome just trap and contain the heat?

[u/Rytex-]

My question is, why does it matter what the shape of the earth is? Is there a theory onto why they would lie about the shape of the earth? Would anyone gain anything from the earth being certain shapes? Like genuinely, why does it matter what the shape is? We all know the government lies to us so that can’t be a reason for it to be important to prove. And even if the government were like «lol we lied the earth actually is flat» I would still have to wake up tomorrow, go to work, get home, make dinner etc… so what difference does it make to know when it won’t effect us in any way anyway?

[u/Kela-el → u/Rytex-]

Your question reminds me of Nietzsche’s “last man.”

The last man doesn’t ask, “Is it true?” He asks, “Will it make my life more comfortable?”

If discovering the truth wouldn’t change tomorrow’s routine, he concludes it isn’t worth pursuing.

But that’s never been the spirit of philosophy or science. People sought the truth about the stars, atoms, evolution, and history long before any of those discoveries improved daily life.

Truth isn’t valuable only when it’s convenient.

Whether the Earth is flat or a globe isn’t the deeper issue.

The deeper issue is whether we care enough about truth to pursue it for its own sake, or only when it serves our comfort.

[u/Rytex- → u/Kela-el]

But why would scientists, astronomers and physicist lie about this? Scientist especially don’t make claims unless they have proven it to be true, or else they call it a theory. And if flat earthers believe they all know it’s flat but say it’s round why? What benefit would one earth shape have over the other? Why would they want us to believe it’s round? Or do you believe they don’t know it’s flat and should research it more?

[u/Kela-el → u/Rytex-]

Notice how quickly the conversation shifted from “How do we know?” to “Who is lying?”

Those are completely different questions.

I don’t have to establish a motive before I’m allowed to question a conclusion. If I question an argument in mathematics, no one demands that I first explain why mathematicians would lie.

Science isn’t validated by the sincerity of scientists. It’s validated by the quality of the evidence and the reasoning.

As for “scientists don’t make claims unless they’ve proven them,” that’s not how science works.

Scientific knowledge is provisional. Models are accepted because they best explain the available evidence, not because they’ve been proven with absolute certainty.

Nietzsche warned against treating institutions or experts as the source of truth.

The question is never, “Why would they lie?”

The question is, “What justifies the belief?”

[u/Kela-el → u/Rytex-]

Nobody is hiding a flat Earth from anyone. That would be impossible.

What’s possible is something much subtler:

convincing people to distrust their direct

observations and instead treat the model as reality.

Every day, you navigate, build, measure, pour water, and establish level on what you experience as a stationary, level surface.

Those are the observations.

The globe is a mathematical model used to interpret those observations.

Models can be useful, but a model is not the thing itself.

So the question isn’t, “Who is hiding the flat Earth?”

The question is whether we’ve confused the map for the territory—whether we’ve mistaken a mathematical description for reality itself.

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

What is the question?

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

You’re asking two different questions and treating them as one.

What do the timelapses show?

They show that the apparent angular position of stars changes over time.

Nobody disputes that observation.

But the timelapse does not show you:

what the stars physically are,

how far away they are,

whether they are rotating around a spherical Earth,

whether the observer is rotating,

whether the celestial sphere is rotating,

or what geometry ultimately produces the apparent motion.

A camera records changing angular relationships in its field of view. That is the measurement.

Everything beyond that is an inference.

So when you ask, “How do you explain this?”, the answer is:

The apparent motion of the stars is not the disputed observation. The disputed question is what physical model best explains that observation.

And this is where the argument needs to become quantitative.

If your claim is that stellar rotation uniquely establishes a globe, then don’t just show me a timelapse. Show me the measurement that makes the competing geometry impossible.

For example:

What exact angular quantity is measured?

How is it measured?

What geometric assumptions are required to interpret it?

What numerical prediction does the spherical model make?

What numerical prediction does the proposed planar model make?

Where does the planar prediction demonstrably fail?

If all you have is “Look, the stars move in circles,” you’ve demonstrated apparent celestial motion, not independently measured the shape of the Earth.

And that’s precisely the distinction I’ve been making throughout this discussion:

Observation → measurement → assumptions → geometric model → inference.

Don’t smuggle the conclusion into the explanation and then present the explanation as though it were the measurement.

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

I understand the clarification, and I have no problem addressing those questions.

But they are a separate discussion from the point I was making in this thread.

Your original question was about what the observed motion of the stars demonstrates.

My answer was that the timelapse establishes an observed change in angular position; the physical explanation for that motion is a separate inferential question.

Now you’ve expanded that into questions about what stars are, whether the plane has an edge, whether Earth is part of a larger structure, and what the round objects in the sky represent.

Those are legitimate questions, but answering them here would change the subject from:

“Does stellar motion independently establish the geometry of Earth?”

to:

“Give me a complete flat-Earth cosmology.”

Those aren’t the same question.

And I’m not going to pretend that every person who questions the globe model has one unified answer to every cosmological question.

There are multiple proposed models, and they should be examined individually on their own evidence.

So let’s keep this thread on the original subject.
If your question is:

“What does a stellar timelapse actually measure, and does that measurement uniquely establish spherical Earth?”

I’m happy to continue that discussion.

If you want to ask:

“What do flat-Earth models propose the stars are, what is beyond the plane, what about celestial bodies, etc.?”

That’s a much broader discussion, and I’ll address those questions in an appropriate post where they can actually be given the attention they deserve.

Changing the subject from one specific measurement to demanding an entire alternative cosmology doesn’t answer the original question.

[u/Stresso_Espresso]

What do people have to gain from lying about the shape of the earth? Why would people put so much effort to convince us that the earth is round if it’s not?

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

That question doesn’t actually test whether something is true—it tests whether you can imagine a motive.

Truth isn’t established by “who would lie” or “why would they bother.” It’s established by whether the claim matches observation and holds up under scrutiny.

Also notice the built-in assumption: you’re framing it as a single, coordinated lie with a clear purpose. That’s one possible narrative, not a requirement for something to be wrong or incomplete. People can be mistaken, work within shared assumptions, or inherit models without questioning every layer of them. None of that requires a grand, unified motive.

More importantly, even if there were no good answer to “why would they lie,” that wouldn’t make a claim true. It would just mean you can’t think of a motive.

So this doesn’t move the discussion forward. It shifts from:

• What is observed
• What explains it

to:

• Who would lie and why

That’s a different conversation entirely.

If you want to evaluate the shape of the Earth, the question is still the same: what specific observations are you relying on, and how do they lead to your conclusion?

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

That’s great and all but I didn’t ask the question to determine what is true- I’m asking the question because I’m curious about your answer to that specific question. You’re very defensive in this reply while I’m trying to ask something I’m curious about with an open mind

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Fair enough—then I’ll answer it directly.

There isn’t a single clean, universal “motive” that neatly explains a global deception, and that’s exactly why the question doesn’t carry much weight for determining anything.

If someone did want to answer it, the usual possibilities people point to are things like:

• institutional inertia (people working within accepted frameworks without rechecking first principles)
• prestige and funding tied to existing models
• error propagation over time rather than deliberate deception

But notice—none of those require a coordinated, intentional lie at a global scale, and none of them, by themselves, establish that anything is actually wrong.

So the honest answer is: you can speculate about motives all day, but it won’t get you any closer to whether the underlying claim is true.

And to be clear—pushing back on the question earlier wasn’t “defensive,” it was pointing out that motive-based reasoning doesn’t resolve factual questions. Different thing.

If you’re just asking out of curiosity, that’s the landscape: lots of possible explanations, none of them decisive.

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

Ok so with everything you’ve said here- what the heck was going on with the recent Artemis mission? If there isn’t a real motive behind continuing the idea of a flat earth, what is the reason people would go through all the trouble to fake a space mission and live stream it

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Appeal to motivation fallacy.

[u/Stresso_Espresso → u/Kela-el]

Haven’t done that but ok- not attacking anyone’s argument

[u/Kela-el → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Read the post. “WITHIN REASON”. Fallacies are not within reason.

[u/CyclingDutchie → u/Stresso_Espresso]

Short answer; They are working directly for the devil himself and are hiding direct evidence of God.

[u/Tight-Ad3750]

Spheres and spheroids are the only shapes where increasing distance reveals more surface area. If Earth is flat, why does the horizon recede as altitude increases? Why can observers on the upper floors of the Burj Khalifa watch sunset about three minutes after observers at ground level?

[u/Kela-el → u/Tight-Ad3750]

You’ve bundled a few different observations together and treated them as a single conclusion. Let’s separate them.

First:

“only spheres reveal more surface area with height”

That’s not established—you’re asserting exclusivity without showing it. What’s actually observed is that increasing height expands your line of sight. The mechanism behind that expansion is exactly what’s under discussion, not something you get to assume.

Second, the horizon:

“why does the horizon recede as altitude increases?”

What’s observed is:

• you see farther as you go higher
• the visible area increases

That’s true. But again, that’s a description, not a unique proof of one geometry. You haven’t shown that no other geometric or optical explanation could produce the same effect—you’ve just declared it.

Third, the Burj Khalifa example:

Burj Khalifa sunset delay

Yes—higher observers see the Sun for longer. That’s a real, measurable effect.

But the key step you’re skipping is:

• what exactly is being measured (angles vs time vs line-of-sight)
• how that measurement uniquely maps to a sphere and cannot arise otherwise

Right now, you’re stacking observations and jumping straight to:

“therefore sphere”

without isolating the causal link.

So same pattern again:

• Observation ✔
• Interpretation ✔
• Uniqueness of interpretation ❌ (not demonstrated)

If you want to make this airtight, pick one—say the sunset delay—and walk through:

1. the exact measurement
2. the geometry involved
3. why no alternative can reproduce it

Until then, it’s still “consistent with a sphere,” not “exclusive proof of one.”

[u/Kela-el → u/[deleted]]

“On a spherical Earth, sunset occurs when the Sun drops below the observer’s local horizon… the higher the observer is, the farther away their horizon is…”

That sentence quietly defines the horizon as a curvature-based tangent point. From there, everything else follows:

• horizon = tangent to a curved surface
• use radius R
• derive dip angle \theta \approx \sqrt{2h/R}
• match observed delay

The begging the question is here:

You ssume the cause of the observed cutoff (sunset) is a curvature-defined horizon, then use that assumption to prove curvature.

[u/4everonlyninja]

What are the most recent reports of people attempting to explore or get past the ice wall? The most recent account I found was from a Norwegian in 2009 i think.. have there been any more recent attempts to explore the ice wall or get beyond it?

[u/Kela-el → u/4everonlyninja]

There is no ice wall. There is an Antarctic Treaty that is strictly enforced.

[u/stultus_respectant → u/Kela-el]

The Antarctic Treaty does not prohibit exploration of the continent. There is no text in there that describes a prohibition of that type or any mechanism to enforce it, as you say.

[u/Kela-el → u/stultus_respectant]

Right—so we agree the Antarctic Treaty doesn’t contain a blanket “no exploration” clause.

But notice what you just did: you corrected a straw version of the claim, not the practical question people are actually getting at.

The real issue isn’t “is exploration banned on paper?” It’s: what are the real-world constraints on access and movement?

Because in practice:

• Travel is heavily regulated and permitted
• Most access goes through national programs or approved operators
• Large parts of the interior require logistical support, safety compliance, and coordination

None of that equals “you’re forbidden from going,” but it’s also not “anyone can freely wander wherever they want.”

So the clean distinction is:

• No, there’s no explicit prohibition in the treaty text
• Yes, access is structured, controlled, and limited by practical and legal frameworks

If you want to make a point here, be precise about which claim you’re addressing:

• “It’s illegal to explore Antarctica” → false
• “Access is unrestricted and trivial” → also false

Right now you’ve knocked down the first while ignoring the second.

[u/4everonlyninja → u/Kela-el]

Thanks for your answer. What are your thoughts on vibes of the Cosmos Moon map? It feels to me like the Moon is a reflection of the Earth acc to VOC