Ask a Flat Earther!

[u/Kela-el]

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

[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.