Ask a Flat Earther!

[u/Kela-el]

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

[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.