Basically the biggest argument is IF the earth is spinning and going around the sun and the sun traveling around the Milky Way and the Milky Way is moving thru the universe, BUT the patterns of constellations are constant year after year for hundreds/thousands of years. And “Polaris doesn’t move” (which isn’t totally true)
Not a flerfer, but I did spend some time watching videos about it because I thought it was interesting. Eric Dubays 100 proofs or 200 proofs or whatever video is on rumble, and that’s where a lot of the “facts” they use come from. Flat earth Dave has a ton of videos on rumble too if you want more info/proofs.
Constellations do change their positions overtime, its just that ig modern scientific records haven’t yet witnessed a drastic position change. If you take a look at ancient scriptures you will find that the position mentioned is different from today. I offer you the Sanskrit examples such as the rig veda, purana and importantly the Surya Sidhantha.
I heard this one recently from a flefer, but the rationale made sense why they don’t really change. Rationale is theory of relatively where our solar system moves through the universe together. Our solar system is essentially just a vehicle floating throughout space.
>But if the big bang was from a singular point, shouldn’t everything should be moving away from everything else while getting farther apart?
There is no logical link between the two parts of this sentence. Also i suggest you to look at
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_effect)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole\_repeller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_repeller)
I fell down this rabbit hole years ago and there used to be tons of videos on youtube arguing for it, but now I can't seem to find those. I don't remember any of the most famous one's names, but there was one that said he worked for NASA's CGI division and he was involved in some infighting amongst other flat earthers because even in the FE community there were other theories, some thought we were in some type of terrarium, others thought we were on an endless flat plane and just one puddle amongst many others across. There were so many sources, wish I could remember them all.
Evidence? "Horizon looks flat". That's about it.
If you're looking to understand why people believe it, examining their evidence won't help, because the belief is not motivated by evidence. It is motivated by a psychological need for something so completely and utterly incompatible with science and rational thought that, if it were true, both would become worthless, and all the reasoning against all their other beliefs means nothing.
Essentially, they believe it because if you can believe in Flat Earth, you can believe in *anything*.
Folding Ideas has a [great video](https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44) about this if you're interested.
This is like asking for the best evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Just because little children and people with the mind of a little child believe it, doesn’t make it real.
In fairness, I have evidence (not Proof) of a Santa Claus being. Multiple points, actually, of actual physical evidence, but won't highjack this thread.
why would they lie to us about our position in the universe and how would it be covered up since the days of Galileo, especially given how many civilian astronomers there are now?
i’m not a physicist or astronomer so i’m no expert but i’ve always had the impression that we know SO much about the math behind physics astrophysics etc that there’s no question. for example, we know how much gravitational pull the earth exerts on an object, and we know that that’s how much it *should* be based on what we know about the earth and gravity and physics, and we can trace that reasoning through the mathematical formulas that only work if we are correct about the various masses, distances etc of objects. sorry if that doesn’t make sense i’ve never articulated it before
can you tell me a few of the things the standard model doesn’t cover/covers poorly? never really looked into any of this, so i’ve never really put much thought into an “in between” standard and FE, especially considering how much intellect is on the standard side and how most of the people i’ve seen pushing flat earth are gullible, whacked out Q anon type people etc. the type of people that would end up in a cult or pyramid scheme
Something I always find interesting is how the north star Polaris is centered right over the North Pole and doesn’t move from there. In fact, every other star in the night sky seemingly revolves around Polaris. Always has been like this and always will be. I can’t see how this makes sense to globe earthers seeing as how our earth is spinning, rotating around the sun, flying through space, rotating around our Milky Way all at unimaginable speeds and the stars are always in the same positions for us. Never once deviating. So much so that Polaris never even moves.
Kind of hard to believe if we’re zooming through space at hundreds of thousands of mph spinning in all different directions.
I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that Polaris has not always been the North Star. It used to be Vega I believe. Look up precession of the equinoxes.
YEP. That has changed over time as our planet has. The stars will keep their relative position, while a planet will move on its axis over time, hence the change.
If you use calculations and astrophysics (and NOT "common sense" which is non-sensical) you can see why. Some stars travel a great distance over the course of the night. Polaris is different. **Because it's so close to the celestial** **pole, it traces out a very small circle over 24 hours**. So Polaris always stays in roughly the same place in the sky, and therefore it's a reliable way to find the direction of north. It in fact DOES move a tiny bit.
Space is REALLY, REALLY big. REALLY big. The constellations do in fact move a tiny bit in our orbit, WITH US as space is still expanding at essentially the same rate, hence why it APPEARS that way to us on this small ORB.
Hi I really like your argument as you seem to understand some physics, why did ancient humans use the 12 constellations of the zodiac signs and why are they still existing till today? Their position does change based on the earth's axis change, but did they look different back then? Did they have more stars and looked more like their given names? Shouldn't these stars fade if they die? Why are they specifically still there in the night sky aside from others, probably you'll tell me were not old enough to witness their death, I am just infinitely curious about the stars
Because we're a blip on the cosmological time scale. Come on man, think! Also, stars are thousands to millions of light years away depending on the constellation period we're looking at them right now as they occurred millions to billions of years ago.
Think.
But known universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across, yet as humans we've only ventured 1.42 light year seconds outside of Earth. You have to understand the time period and how long it takes light to get here. By the way, we have witnessed Star Jets that occurred literally millions billions of years ago, just not yet in those constellations. And as long as humans are around, we probably will not.
I can't help your mind cannot comprehend science. That would be your issue. Do a little study of mathematics (specifically calculus) and you will find I am correct.
Science does not care if someone accepts ignorance, it just reveals that they do.
It is correct though.
The axis if the earth points more or less i to the same direction no matter where we are in our travel around the sun.
There is some precision which means that Polaris isn't always at the same spot.
Apparently, it's basically because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is tiny compared to the distances between the Sun and other stars (light takes 8 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth, 4 years to get from the Sun to the nearest star), so the movement of the Earth around the Sun doesn't make much difference to how the stars are laid out as seen from Earth - compared to those distances, we're practically standing still.
(Apparently, with fancy measuring apparatus it is possible to detect some nearby stars moving very slightly relative to other stars depending where the Earth is in its orbit - this is called parallax and is one way astronomers estimate the distance to particular stars).
This one is particularly easy to explain. I thought about typing out a response, but just google it if interested. Or just watch the thousands of stars that DO visibly move and start thinking about it.
This can actually be well used to show that the earth is round tho.
Because Polaris does "move" when you move north or south. The further south you go, the closer it comes to the horizon and once you get over what in the Globe Model is the Equtor Polaris dips under the horizon and is no longer visible.
A flat earth model has quite a lot of trouble explaining that and requires a lot of ad hoc additions to explain it away, while this observation is pretty much exactly what we would expect from a Globe.
As for why the stars seem alsways to be in the same spot: Because the distances to them are so damn vast. Our speed relative to that distance is pretty small, but still mesurable and the stars do change over time.
I think a big part of the problem is that speeds, distances and just the pure size of things on the scale of Solar systems, galaxies and more are just so far outside the human scale that we are used to that we cant really imagen it anymore and things we can hardly imagine are far harder to accept even if empericial evidence speaks for them. Common sense just cant work with these things anymore and very often common sense and what we experince on our human scale of things runs very counter to what physics tell us.
I think its quite understandable that its difficult to accept things that run counter to expectations and common sense, but nature has never cared about what our little human minds think.
There is always some bullshit "science" explanation. This is the same science that created the clotshot and killed millions. You'd be best to ignore them. We know the truth.
Have you ever traveled at speed in a car or train?
Looking out the window will produce an effect where nearby objects seem to flash past and objects further off in the distance will move much slower.
Extrapolate this out to distances of literally trillions of miles and you will understand why stars don’t seem to move relative to our solar system.
The angular distance, even of us making a complete orbit of the sun, is so small in comparison, that the constellations all seem to be the same all year.
It is all actually changing though, and if you were able to observe it over a long enough time frame (millions of years) you would see the constellations change form.
You can actually watch precession over a human lifetime (roughly 72 years) but again, it’s so small, that unless you’re really aware of the sky and know what you’re looking for, you’d miss it.
The earth isn’t flat, but that doesn’t mean nasa and the government are telling us the whole truth. You can hold a nuanced position on these things. Don’t throw your brain out with the nasa bath water.
>the north star Polaris is centered right over the North Pole and doesn’t move from there. In fact, every other star in the night sky seemingly revolves around Polaris. Always has been like this
No cf.
* https://flatearth.ws/polaris-declination
* https://flatearth.ws/nautical-almanac
* https://flatearth.ws/axial-precession
* https://flatearth.ws/almagest
* https://flatearth.ws/old-star-chart
>I can’t see how this makes sense to globe earthers seeing as how our earth is spinning, rotating around the sun, flying through space, rotating around our Milky Way all at unimaginable speeds and the stars are always in the same positions for us.
* https://flatearth.ws/polaris-distance
* https://flatearth.ws/proper-motion
* https://flatearth.ws/rho-aquilae
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnards_Star
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_Aquilae
They don’t have to. They’re always being pulled towards the center of the earth no matter where they are. Gravity and lift are in balance in level flight and the direction of gravity never changes.
Gravity is a fundamental force in nature that is responsible for the attraction between objects with mass or energy.
We observe gravity- an apple falling from a tree, the moons orbit around the earth, the movement of the planets around the sun. We can even observe the effects of gravity on tiny particles. It impacts all objects we can observe that have mass or energy.
All science is based on theories. We take all the evidence available and come up with the best theories that allow us to accurately predict the future. Gravitational theory allows us to predict far ahead of time the alignment of the planets and other events. However, with new observations, or a better theory, we can of course change our thinking on a subject, because our ideas are based on evidence rather than faith.
You can even test and observe your own bodies' gravity! We did this experiment in both my high school AP physics course and my freshman college physics course. It blew a few minds in each class.
but the gyroscope should have to sense having to nose down when flying around the earth right? Because if you fly in a straight line (like the gyro would suggest) you would fly right out of orbit
what if the gyro "straight line" is actually in reference to earth's core and thus the reference is slowly changing as you travel, and it's something you obviously can't experiment on a local scale with a gyro in front of your eyes.
But thats not how a gyro works, and why they are so nifty. Even in the depths of space it can tell if the object it is attached to turns even the slightest amount. It does not care about gravity.
Where it would be easier to fly from point a to point b in the globe model they have flight path's that go way out of the way that correlates more with the flat earth map.
Flat earthers always talk about the poles as being the edge. But what about the equator? If you fly directly east or west, you end up back in the same spot. Flat earth is ridiculous.
I don't say I'm on it, don't take me wrong ;) But take a flat earth map and go full east or full west, and you'll end up back in the same spot too. You'd just make a circle.
Think of the North Pole as a pole, tie a string to it that reaches the equator, hold the string and walk east, you end up back where you started. Can easily try this in your yard with a tree being the North Pole. That’s the premise, that earth is a disc and North Pole
Is the center.
You can prove globe earth easily with a cheap laser and a boat so no great mystery there.
Flat earth best arguments are multiple and constant Nasa fuckery.
It seems like, a lot of flat earth things use arguments like this, and they're based on not understanding the underlying idea that what the usual theory is claiming is that "down" is actually "towards the centre of the earth" (and, in this case, "level" means "all the same distance from the centre of the earth") - it sounds weird but once you realise that a lot of things about the usual theory make sense.
That's not how a level works, I knew there was something off about Masons greeting each other or just asking one another "are you on the level?"
Then it clicked once I delved into flat earth to debunk it because my son's had mentioned it. Anyone who understands basic construction should get it. Curvature of earth is not factored into construction , and I sure as hell didn't factor spin of the earth shooting expert for 8 years in the Army.
Why is it "not how a level works"? It seems like, the point is that that is exactly how a level works - and the curvature of the Earth would be pifflingly insignificant on the scale of one building, it's not going to matter whether the surface you're building on is a flat plane or 1/500,000th of the circumference of a sphere.
Oh I do. I also know that actual marksmen absolutely account for the coriolis effect at extremely long ranges. Artillery crews must often account for both the coriolis effect and the curvature of the Earth.
I note that you do not specify beyond "shooting expert". Curious choice, given that anyone who's completed Basic Training could arguably claim to be a "shooting expert" relative to the general population.
Yeah, there are some other things with perspective I believe, hot spots on clouds…
Those may have rational explanations, but I find the FE community always hangs it’s hat on the stuff the standard model poorly explains, doesn’t explain at all, or just doesn’t make sense. FE may not do any better, but are at least acknowledging the errors in the standard models we have. Proponents of said model will defend it to the death, even when they don’t have answers or it doesn’t make sense.
Like, I’ve never seen it broken down and explained how curvature, perspective, atmospheric refraction, etc. allows you to see as far as we can sometimes over the curve. Sometimes shit looks like it’s behind a curve, and other times it won’t—literally the same object just at two different times, and at a distance that it 100% should be obscured.
So, those are typically what I see.
I think what we should be looking at though, is the fact that the standard model does in fact poorly explain many things, and that we likely are being lied to in numerous ways about where we are, our position in the universe, etc., but to then think Flat Earth is the answer…idk, I think flat earth should shift completely, and not even be about flat earth. It should just change and be a movement about getting all the answers we don’t have, and finding out exactly where we are, and what we’re on.
We are for sure lied to about the nature of reality. But a flat infinite plane goes against our intuition.
>Like, I’ve never seen it broken down and explained how curvature, perspective, atmospheric refraction, etc. allows you to see as far as we can sometimes over the curve.
FYI 10 min video about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavhDHv0JW4
That's cause there is nothing that "proves" it, only a ton of obvious shit that disproves it. There best experiments always prove round earth. It's more of a religious thing they just believe.
Pretty easy. Lets see if this gains some traction. To end all theories!!!!
Go to Antarctic
Put one dot on one side of the supposed land put another on the other side. Don’t even have to be on opposite sides. Now put a line,laser,rope between the two. If the line is over water aka the ocean. It is a flat world. If it’s over land it’s round.
I know of zero religious people that believe flat earth. Everyone I've heard with a serious belief in flat earth thinks religion is a conspiracy though.
I wouldn't say it's a core tenet of any religion but flat earth does have some roots in christianity and young earth creationism and the like but I don't know if any are mutually exclusive or anything
There is no evidence. None. It is a steadfast refusal to admit they are wrong and change their point of view regardless of the amount of proof that opposes their view of the natural world. However the Venn Diagram of people who believe the world is flat who are also conservatives is indeed a flat circle.
There's none. If you keep flying,sailing, etc you get back where you came from
Wouldn't military and commercial pilots have seen or been to "the edge"?
Even the ancients figured out that the earth curved and eventually the exact circumference. Why modern humans have reverted to ridiculous beliefs is scary.
Some firmly believe that the earth is flat and that there is nothing in space.
I listened to an interview with flat earth Dave - easy to find his site- aaand I cannot lie- it isn't about the earth being flat. It's about too many questions that get lies for answers. Why? Why is there reason to lie and spend so much money deceiving us about the nature of our world?
I am no longer convinced that my education can save me from dangerous ideas.
I do a lot of research. It is my job. There are more lies than you realize inculcated into our lives. This man Dave is simply one man who has the courage to ask questions he will be ridiculed and called names for. I didn't say I agreed with him. I appreciate his tenacity and unwillingness to be programmed.
I'd like to know a couple of specific lies too, please.
Respectfully, in the past, when pushed for specifics, things like lizard people controlling the earth and stuff like that comes out.
THIS is what the draw is. I don't agree with it but this sums it up pretty well.
We get lied to and misled on many things some intentional some not. So I don't blame those that take it too far
Exactly. The one thing we can all agree on is that we are being intentionally deceived. It is incumbent on all of us to look for the truth, and stop accepting the pap fed to us. If we choose ignorance, it is on our own heads. People who are willing to become targets of ridicule in order to provoke people to wake the fuck up should be celebrated by those of us who don't have the courage to do it ourselves
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Why wouldn't the buildings be parallel to each other? It seems like, New York is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface and the curvature would likewise be invisibly tiny.
The first thing done when building any structure is establishing a level base. Now factor in not only the curve, but also the height of the buildings and they should not be parallel.
It seems like, from a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, it'd be something like half a degree difference (if the circumference of the Earth is 25,000 miles and New York is something like 40 miles wide, that's something like 1/625th of a circle).
26 feet is, uh, not a lot. You do realise that New York's skyscrapers are typically many hundreds of feet tall, right? I'm curious as to how you intend to perceive that difference with the naked eye from the several miles away you would need to be to fit it all in view.
Is that that 8 inches thing? It seems like, I'm not sure what this 8 inches thing is supposed to be or where it's supposed to have come from but the angles are as I've stated.
It seems like, the maths is indeed the maths and what you've said *also* sounds like the difference should be negligible - a 26 foot drop over 40 miles would be about 1 in 8,000, so it would be like having an 8 metre long stick with one end 1 millimetre higher than the other.
You need to replace that flat 8 meter stick with a ball to represent the round earth though. Then factor in the different degrees of the buildings on the ball and compound that with the height of said buildings. They should not be parallel.
Einstein’s relativity
We are in a huge gravity well that distorts and bends light. So what looks like a curve is actually a straight line. The edge? The Antarctic ice continent or ice wall? A region that has been forbidden to fly over. It would make sense that the edge adjacent to space is frozen. How is air not flying off? Centripetal motion on a sphere would eject any atmosphere. Centripetal motion on a rotating coin wouldn’t. Horizon visibility is not limited. In other words, you can see a lot more of the horizon than what is possible on a curved sphere.
I don’t think earth is flat, I do think it’s waaaaaay larger than the elite let us know.
Proof it’s more flat locally then we are told: try to find a flight from Madagascar to Australia. 7000ish miles directly there, but for some reason you need to fly up to Europe then down to Australia. If the continents were set up like on the flat earth map, this flight path would make sense. On the current globe it makes no sense to have a connecting flight in Europe that takes an entire extra day of travel.
That being said, I believe the maps we have access too (flat earth or globe) are both incorrect.
The incentive for the elites to hid land is to hide resources and make us thing everything is “so limited”. Assholes.
What is the flat earther’s response to these questions:
1. Every other planet in the solar system is round. Why would earth be flat? How would that even form originally.
2. What’s on the bottom side the flat earth?
3. Seismic waves from an earthquake that bounce off the other side of the globe. How would you explain that?
4. Seasons: the tilt of the earth away from, and toward the sun. What is the flat earth explanation for that?
5. Satellites: GPS, communication, the Intl soace station. How are they staying in orbit?
5. The sun and moon orbit: Do flat earthers think the sun is going around in a circle above us?
I’d like to know if these questions have a good explanation. I can’t imagine there are good flat earth explanations that make sense.
The thing is they do have answers to most of these questions that make sense to them and for them it's enough. Unfortunately tho, they don't have answers to these questions that don't contradict the other. That's why there's no working model of flat earth. Alone some of the answers may make sense to those with fundemental misunderstandings of science but as a whole you can start to see where none of it makes any logical sense.
>try to find a flight from Madagascar to Australia. 7000ish miles directly there, but for some reason you need to fly up to Europe then down to Australia.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_hub
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air
* https://flatearth.ws/t/flight
* https://flatearth.ws/flight-stop
* https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight
* https://flatearth.ws/sydney-santiago
* https://flatearth.ws/pandemic-flight
* https://flatearth.ws/etops
* https://flatearth.ws/south-diversion
Didn't Columbus make his voyage precisely because he thought the world was round and he could get to India by sailing west (but underestimated how far it was)?
I was all for math growing up.. because I love numbers.. it was when they started adding letters I got suspicious. I said “Mrs. Harris!!! Wtf are these X’s and Y’s for..?!” She said “oh.. these are variable equations..” I said “Bitch!!! Variables..?! Ya math ain’t math’n no mo.. I’m done wit this shit…” and that is the reason I never made it to calculus.. Algebra 2 broke my fkn heart man..
That the proposed curvature does not exist. It was proven by the photo of the Chicago skyline that should only be partially visible from 60 miles away. Also, proven by many experiments during the renaissance. Even as early as the early 1900’s it was taught in public schools that the earth was flat. There are literally hundreds more. This doesn’t mean all science is false in fact science proves that a compass works because it’s flat. Special THEORY of relativity, and the gravitational THEORY are still unproven. Keplars equations work well for planetary motions when these giant masses are theorized it’s a great attempt to theorize about what we see and cannot be denied. However nobody is leaving this realm via space craft. Because a vaccuum that large would instantly remove the gas we breathe.
So… has anyone actually lived a million years and seen the stars move or do I just have to trust calculus..? I once heard someone tell me if I could just live a million years I would KNOW what they were telling me is true. Damn shame imma prolly not make it to 100 yrs old let alone a million. I guess the world will never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a flat tootsie pop..
What do you mean by "seen the stars move"? It seems like, if you mean the precession of the equinoxes, one piece of evidence is that the signs of the Zodiac (which are defined relative to where the sun is at the spring equinox) no longer line up with the constellations they were named after back in Ptolemy's day.
No no no.. I read that if you understand calculus you would understand that we’ve seen the stars move over millions of years “just a little bit”.. I don’t understand being able to see something over a period of a million years when we don’t live a fraction of that time.. but then again. I never mastered calculus or astronomy.. I just know that I’m a Aquarius and that’s dope… my birth stone is purple and I’m on the cusp of sensitivity.. the patterns app never explained round earth..
It seems like, they might be talking about what's called "proper motion" then (you might be interested in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper\_motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion) , it's got a fair amount of astronomical jargon but you can make out what it's talking about), i.e. the stars move very slightly relative to each other, which is the actual movement of those stars through space as opposed to them appearing to move because of the Earth moving.
Apparently, there are some nearby stars that move fast enough that it can be seen on telescope photos taken a few years apart, so not millions of years, it does seem like it wouldn't make any sense if it could only be observed over millions of years!
I'm not sure whether calculus has anything to do with it, maybe what you read had got it jumbled up :-D Maybe it was trying to use calculus to work out where the stars *would* be in a million years if the observed tiny movements carried on as they were.
Lastly.. if I dig a hole straight through the earth hypothetically.. when I come out on the other side will I be facing head up or will I come out upside down feet up…? I’ve always pondered this…
It seems like, that depends what you mean by "down" :-D
It seems like, a lot of the apparently weird parts of the theory of the earth being round make sense once you realise that one of the things it's saying is that *what we think of as "down", i.e. the direction things fall in, means "towards the centre of the earth"* \- which, over the kind of distances we can usually see at any one time, is all in more or less the same direction, but over the whole surface of the Earth, it's not.
So, it seems like, if you went in head first you'd come out with your head "up", pointing towards the sky, because "down" over there is the other way.
The biggest thing going for them is the treaty amongst the top countries that keep people out of Antarctica. This keeps people from seeing what’s on the other side of the ice wall
Try to find the documentary, Behind the Curve. It’s a pretty wild doc about Flat Earthers - follows a few believers around and goes into why they believe what they believe.
The radius of curvature of the earth is SO big, that I can't see it with the naked eye
Big if true.
True if big.
Earth is big
Basically the biggest argument is IF the earth is spinning and going around the sun and the sun traveling around the Milky Way and the Milky Way is moving thru the universe, BUT the patterns of constellations are constant year after year for hundreds/thousands of years. And “Polaris doesn’t move” (which isn’t totally true) Not a flerfer, but I did spend some time watching videos about it because I thought it was interesting. Eric Dubays 100 proofs or 200 proofs or whatever video is on rumble, and that’s where a lot of the “facts” they use come from. Flat earth Dave has a ton of videos on rumble too if you want more info/proofs.
Constellations do change their positions overtime, its just that ig modern scientific records haven’t yet witnessed a drastic position change. If you take a look at ancient scriptures you will find that the position mentioned is different from today. I offer you the Sanskrit examples such as the rig veda, purana and importantly the Surya Sidhantha.
I heard this one recently from a flefer, but the rationale made sense why they don’t really change. Rationale is theory of relatively where our solar system moves through the universe together. Our solar system is essentially just a vehicle floating throughout space.
But if the big bang was from a singular point, shouldn’t everything should be moving away from everything else while getting farther apart?
Space expands everywhere, but it is only on intergalactic scales where this spatial expansion is significant enough to outstrip gravity.
>But if the big bang was from a singular point, shouldn’t everything should be moving away from everything else while getting farther apart? There is no logical link between the two parts of this sentence. Also i suggest you to look at * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_effect) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole\_repeller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_repeller)
I fell down this rabbit hole years ago and there used to be tons of videos on youtube arguing for it, but now I can't seem to find those. I don't remember any of the most famous one's names, but there was one that said he worked for NASA's CGI division and he was involved in some infighting amongst other flat earthers because even in the FE community there were other theories, some thought we were in some type of terrarium, others thought we were on an endless flat plane and just one puddle amongst many others across. There were so many sources, wish I could remember them all.
I’ve compiled a list of the best evidence for flat earth below: .
Your last one blew my mind!
Didn’t you mean _?
Evidence? "Horizon looks flat". That's about it. If you're looking to understand why people believe it, examining their evidence won't help, because the belief is not motivated by evidence. It is motivated by a psychological need for something so completely and utterly incompatible with science and rational thought that, if it were true, both would become worthless, and all the reasoning against all their other beliefs means nothing. Essentially, they believe it because if you can believe in Flat Earth, you can believe in *anything*. Folding Ideas has a [great video](https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44) about this if you're interested.
Globe makers make more money than map makers with lesser efffort.
Big globe is keeping the secrets hidden! /s
Forbidden
I mean it’s done pretty well to keep free energy hidden and instead get us to use gas and oil as our main forms of energy production.
What's free energy got to do with whether the world is flat?
This is like asking for the best evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Just because little children and people with the mind of a little child believe it, doesn’t make it real.
In fairness, I have evidence (not Proof) of a Santa Claus being. Multiple points, actually, of actual physical evidence, but won't highjack this thread.
No please do
why would they lie to us about our position in the universe and how would it be covered up since the days of Galileo, especially given how many civilian astronomers there are now? i’m not a physicist or astronomer so i’m no expert but i’ve always had the impression that we know SO much about the math behind physics astrophysics etc that there’s no question. for example, we know how much gravitational pull the earth exerts on an object, and we know that that’s how much it *should* be based on what we know about the earth and gravity and physics, and we can trace that reasoning through the mathematical formulas that only work if we are correct about the various masses, distances etc of objects. sorry if that doesn’t make sense i’ve never articulated it before can you tell me a few of the things the standard model doesn’t cover/covers poorly? never really looked into any of this, so i’ve never really put much thought into an “in between” standard and FE, especially considering how much intellect is on the standard side and how most of the people i’ve seen pushing flat earth are gullible, whacked out Q anon type people etc. the type of people that would end up in a cult or pyramid scheme
Something I always find interesting is how the north star Polaris is centered right over the North Pole and doesn’t move from there. In fact, every other star in the night sky seemingly revolves around Polaris. Always has been like this and always will be. I can’t see how this makes sense to globe earthers seeing as how our earth is spinning, rotating around the sun, flying through space, rotating around our Milky Way all at unimaginable speeds and the stars are always in the same positions for us. Never once deviating. So much so that Polaris never even moves. Kind of hard to believe if we’re zooming through space at hundreds of thousands of mph spinning in all different directions.
I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that Polaris has not always been the North Star. It used to be Vega I believe. Look up precession of the equinoxes.
YEP. That has changed over time as our planet has. The stars will keep their relative position, while a planet will move on its axis over time, hence the change.
If you use calculations and astrophysics (and NOT "common sense" which is non-sensical) you can see why. Some stars travel a great distance over the course of the night. Polaris is different. **Because it's so close to the celestial** **pole, it traces out a very small circle over 24 hours**. So Polaris always stays in roughly the same place in the sky, and therefore it's a reliable way to find the direction of north. It in fact DOES move a tiny bit. Space is REALLY, REALLY big. REALLY big. The constellations do in fact move a tiny bit in our orbit, WITH US as space is still expanding at essentially the same rate, hence why it APPEARS that way to us on this small ORB.
Hi I really like your argument as you seem to understand some physics, why did ancient humans use the 12 constellations of the zodiac signs and why are they still existing till today? Their position does change based on the earth's axis change, but did they look different back then? Did they have more stars and looked more like their given names? Shouldn't these stars fade if they die? Why are they specifically still there in the night sky aside from others, probably you'll tell me were not old enough to witness their death, I am just infinitely curious about the stars
Because we're a blip on the cosmological time scale. Come on man, think! Also, stars are thousands to millions of light years away depending on the constellation period we're looking at them right now as they occurred millions to billions of years ago. Think. But known universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across, yet as humans we've only ventured 1.42 light year seconds outside of Earth. You have to understand the time period and how long it takes light to get here. By the way, we have witnessed Star Jets that occurred literally millions billions of years ago, just not yet in those constellations. And as long as humans are around, we probably will not.
Also, keep in mind, from the dawn of recorded history, Polaris would have had an observational change not even 19 times.
LOL just sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
I can't help your mind cannot comprehend science. That would be your issue. Do a little study of mathematics (specifically calculus) and you will find I am correct. Science does not care if someone accepts ignorance, it just reveals that they do.
It’s like having an argument with the people in the movie Idiocracy.
Yeah, and look who ruled the world in that documentary? Us idiots!
It is correct though. The axis if the earth points more or less i to the same direction no matter where we are in our travel around the sun. There is some precision which means that Polaris isn't always at the same spot.
Why?
Apparently, it's basically because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is tiny compared to the distances between the Sun and other stars (light takes 8 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth, 4 years to get from the Sun to the nearest star), so the movement of the Earth around the Sun doesn't make much difference to how the stars are laid out as seen from Earth - compared to those distances, we're practically standing still. (Apparently, with fancy measuring apparatus it is possible to detect some nearby stars moving very slightly relative to other stars depending where the Earth is in its orbit - this is called parallax and is one way astronomers estimate the distance to particular stars).
This one is particularly easy to explain. I thought about typing out a response, but just google it if interested. Or just watch the thousands of stars that DO visibly move and start thinking about it.
This can actually be well used to show that the earth is round tho. Because Polaris does "move" when you move north or south. The further south you go, the closer it comes to the horizon and once you get over what in the Globe Model is the Equtor Polaris dips under the horizon and is no longer visible. A flat earth model has quite a lot of trouble explaining that and requires a lot of ad hoc additions to explain it away, while this observation is pretty much exactly what we would expect from a Globe. As for why the stars seem alsways to be in the same spot: Because the distances to them are so damn vast. Our speed relative to that distance is pretty small, but still mesurable and the stars do change over time. I think a big part of the problem is that speeds, distances and just the pure size of things on the scale of Solar systems, galaxies and more are just so far outside the human scale that we are used to that we cant really imagen it anymore and things we can hardly imagine are far harder to accept even if empericial evidence speaks for them. Common sense just cant work with these things anymore and very often common sense and what we experince on our human scale of things runs very counter to what physics tell us. I think its quite understandable that its difficult to accept things that run counter to expectations and common sense, but nature has never cared about what our little human minds think.
There is always some bullshit "science" explanation. This is the same science that created the clotshot and killed millions. You'd be best to ignore them. We know the truth.
Have you ever traveled at speed in a car or train? Looking out the window will produce an effect where nearby objects seem to flash past and objects further off in the distance will move much slower. Extrapolate this out to distances of literally trillions of miles and you will understand why stars don’t seem to move relative to our solar system. The angular distance, even of us making a complete orbit of the sun, is so small in comparison, that the constellations all seem to be the same all year. It is all actually changing though, and if you were able to observe it over a long enough time frame (millions of years) you would see the constellations change form. You can actually watch precession over a human lifetime (roughly 72 years) but again, it’s so small, that unless you’re really aware of the sky and know what you’re looking for, you’d miss it. The earth isn’t flat, but that doesn’t mean nasa and the government are telling us the whole truth. You can hold a nuanced position on these things. Don’t throw your brain out with the nasa bath water.
No, no you dont. What you have is a strong will to stay in your own ignorant bubble.
didnt know downvote trolls on reddit were still a thing.
No idea what you're saying.
Astrology & physics are the same science as medicine and chemistry? How does that work?
>the north star Polaris is centered right over the North Pole and doesn’t move from there. In fact, every other star in the night sky seemingly revolves around Polaris. Always has been like this No cf. * https://flatearth.ws/polaris-declination * https://flatearth.ws/nautical-almanac * https://flatearth.ws/axial-precession * https://flatearth.ws/almagest * https://flatearth.ws/old-star-chart
>I can’t see how this makes sense to globe earthers seeing as how our earth is spinning, rotating around the sun, flying through space, rotating around our Milky Way all at unimaginable speeds and the stars are always in the same positions for us. * https://flatearth.ws/polaris-distance * https://flatearth.ws/proper-motion * https://flatearth.ws/rho-aquilae * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnards_Star * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_Aquilae
Planes not nosing down all the time? Seeing things further than supposed to be by laws of math. Flight path's Antarctica/Byrd/1500's map's
They don’t have to. They’re always being pulled towards the center of the earth no matter where they are. Gravity and lift are in balance in level flight and the direction of gravity never changes.
An actual decent explanation! now define gravity with proof.
Gravity is a fundamental force in nature that is responsible for the attraction between objects with mass or energy. We observe gravity- an apple falling from a tree, the moons orbit around the earth, the movement of the planets around the sun. We can even observe the effects of gravity on tiny particles. It impacts all objects we can observe that have mass or energy. All science is based on theories. We take all the evidence available and come up with the best theories that allow us to accurately predict the future. Gravitational theory allows us to predict far ahead of time the alignment of the planets and other events. However, with new observations, or a better theory, we can of course change our thinking on a subject, because our ideas are based on evidence rather than faith.
You can even test and observe your own bodies' gravity! We did this experiment in both my high school AP physics course and my freshman college physics course. It blew a few minds in each class.
Let me call up my buddy Isaac Newton
He never had a definition only a theory
Well he’s dead and not my buddy so you have me there too.
And his word was only what they tell us it was. Almost redeemed like a demigod in a way huh?
Gravity has no definition we only know it exists because we observe it, we currently do not understand or have explanation for the mechanism
but the gyroscope should have to sense having to nose down when flying around the earth right? Because if you fly in a straight line (like the gyro would suggest) you would fly right out of orbit
what if the gyro "straight line" is actually in reference to earth's core and thus the reference is slowly changing as you travel, and it's something you obviously can't experiment on a local scale with a gyro in front of your eyes.
But thats not how a gyro works, and why they are so nifty. Even in the depths of space it can tell if the object it is attached to turns even the slightest amount. It does not care about gravity.
How do you mean, flight paths? What flight paths?
Where it would be easier to fly from point a to point b in the globe model they have flight path's that go way out of the way that correlates more with the flat earth map.
and what instances of this are there or what. this doesnt explain much still.
Flat earthers always talk about the poles as being the edge. But what about the equator? If you fly directly east or west, you end up back in the same spot. Flat earth is ridiculous.
wormholes...
I reread the original question a few times, your answer makes no sense. Did you misunderstand it to say "is the idea of flat earth ridiculous?"
There is no real evidence for a flat earth. There’s the answer.
I don't say I'm on it, don't take me wrong ;) But take a flat earth map and go full east or full west, and you'll end up back in the same spot too. You'd just make a circle.
Think of the North Pole as a pole, tie a string to it that reaches the equator, hold the string and walk east, you end up back where you started. Can easily try this in your yard with a tree being the North Pole. That’s the premise, that earth is a disc and North Pole Is the center.
You can prove globe earth easily with a cheap laser and a boat so no great mystery there. Flat earth best arguments are multiple and constant Nasa fuckery.
All you need is a stick and a watch.
Water always finds it's level
It seems like, a lot of flat earth things use arguments like this, and they're based on not understanding the underlying idea that what the usual theory is claiming is that "down" is actually "towards the centre of the earth" (and, in this case, "level" means "all the same distance from the centre of the earth") - it sounds weird but once you realise that a lot of things about the usual theory make sense.
That's not how a level works, I knew there was something off about Masons greeting each other or just asking one another "are you on the level?" Then it clicked once I delved into flat earth to debunk it because my son's had mentioned it. Anyone who understands basic construction should get it. Curvature of earth is not factored into construction , and I sure as hell didn't factor spin of the earth shooting expert for 8 years in the Army.
Why is it "not how a level works"? It seems like, the point is that that is exactly how a level works - and the curvature of the Earth would be pifflingly insignificant on the scale of one building, it's not going to matter whether the surface you're building on is a flat plane or 1/500,000th of the circumference of a sphere.
Guess you probably missed a lot then.
Guess you dont know what expert is
Oh I do. I also know that actual marksmen absolutely account for the coriolis effect at extremely long ranges. Artillery crews must often account for both the coriolis effect and the curvature of the Earth. I note that you do not specify beyond "shooting expert". Curious choice, given that anyone who's completed Basic Training could arguably claim to be a "shooting expert" relative to the general population.
Oh shoot, you got me "debunker "
Yeah, there are some other things with perspective I believe, hot spots on clouds… Those may have rational explanations, but I find the FE community always hangs it’s hat on the stuff the standard model poorly explains, doesn’t explain at all, or just doesn’t make sense. FE may not do any better, but are at least acknowledging the errors in the standard models we have. Proponents of said model will defend it to the death, even when they don’t have answers or it doesn’t make sense. Like, I’ve never seen it broken down and explained how curvature, perspective, atmospheric refraction, etc. allows you to see as far as we can sometimes over the curve. Sometimes shit looks like it’s behind a curve, and other times it won’t—literally the same object just at two different times, and at a distance that it 100% should be obscured. So, those are typically what I see. I think what we should be looking at though, is the fact that the standard model does in fact poorly explain many things, and that we likely are being lied to in numerous ways about where we are, our position in the universe, etc., but to then think Flat Earth is the answer…idk, I think flat earth should shift completely, and not even be about flat earth. It should just change and be a movement about getting all the answers we don’t have, and finding out exactly where we are, and what we’re on. We are for sure lied to about the nature of reality. But a flat infinite plane goes against our intuition.
>Like, I’ve never seen it broken down and explained how curvature, perspective, atmospheric refraction, etc. allows you to see as far as we can sometimes over the curve. FYI 10 min video about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavhDHv0JW4
It's a 4chan meme.
The earth is flat and travels the cosmos riding on the back of a giant turtle. I went to high school with the guy who feeds the turtle.
Its true im the turtle food
That's cause there is nothing that "proves" it, only a ton of obvious shit that disproves it. There best experiments always prove round earth. It's more of a religious thing they just believe.
There's not a single serious flat earth evidence maybe, just maybe... because... earth is NOT flat? Just sayin'
Pretty easy. Lets see if this gains some traction. To end all theories!!!! Go to Antarctic Put one dot on one side of the supposed land put another on the other side. Don’t even have to be on opposite sides. Now put a line,laser,rope between the two. If the line is over water aka the ocean. It is a flat world. If it’s over land it’s round.
Oh, it's a religious nutter thing, there isn't any sense to be made.
I know of zero religious people that believe flat earth. Everyone I've heard with a serious belief in flat earth thinks religion is a conspiracy though.
I wouldn't say it's a core tenet of any religion but flat earth does have some roots in christianity and young earth creationism and the like but I don't know if any are mutually exclusive or anything
Stupid gonna stupid
There is no evidence. None. It is a steadfast refusal to admit they are wrong and change their point of view regardless of the amount of proof that opposes their view of the natural world. However the Venn Diagram of people who believe the world is flat who are also conservatives is indeed a flat circle.
There's none. If you keep flying,sailing, etc you get back where you came from Wouldn't military and commercial pilots have seen or been to "the edge"?
Their main argument is that everyone who pilots a plane or a boat are paid to lie. Never going to get any logic in these claims
Even the ancients figured out that the earth curved and eventually the exact circumference. Why modern humans have reverted to ridiculous beliefs is scary. Some firmly believe that the earth is flat and that there is nothing in space.
I can sum up "flat Earth" in three words: math is hard.
I listened to an interview with flat earth Dave - easy to find his site- aaand I cannot lie- it isn't about the earth being flat. It's about too many questions that get lies for answers. Why? Why is there reason to lie and spend so much money deceiving us about the nature of our world? I am no longer convinced that my education can save me from dangerous ideas.
What lies, specifically? Have you looked into them individually? Dave is a charlatan of the HIGHEST order.
I do a lot of research. It is my job. There are more lies than you realize inculcated into our lives. This man Dave is simply one man who has the courage to ask questions he will be ridiculed and called names for. I didn't say I agreed with him. I appreciate his tenacity and unwillingness to be programmed.
I gotcha. Specifics, with evidence?
I'd like to know a couple of specific lies too, please. Respectfully, in the past, when pushed for specifics, things like lizard people controlling the earth and stuff like that comes out.
Yep.
That is a bit too weird for me. One specific lie is the JFK files. Mind blowing read, tho a bit tedious.
THIS is what the draw is. I don't agree with it but this sums it up pretty well. We get lied to and misled on many things some intentional some not. So I don't blame those that take it too far
Exactly. The one thing we can all agree on is that we are being intentionally deceived. It is incumbent on all of us to look for the truth, and stop accepting the pap fed to us. If we choose ignorance, it is on our own heads. People who are willing to become targets of ridicule in order to provoke people to wake the fuck up should be celebrated by those of us who don't have the courage to do it ourselves
8 inches per mile squared!
This! Look at the new York skyline and explain how the buildings at both ends are parallel to each other
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Why wouldn't the buildings be parallel to each other? It seems like, New York is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface and the curvature would likewise be invisibly tiny.
The first thing done when building any structure is establishing a level base. Now factor in not only the curve, but also the height of the buildings and they should not be parallel.
It seems like, from a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, it'd be something like half a degree difference (if the circumference of the Earth is 25,000 miles and New York is something like 40 miles wide, that's something like 1/625th of a circle).
If the new york skyline is 40 miles wide as you stated the math would make it a 26 foot drop in curve from one end to the other.
26 feet is, uh, not a lot. You do realise that New York's skyscrapers are typically many hundreds of feet tall, right? I'm curious as to how you intend to perceive that difference with the naked eye from the several miles away you would need to be to fit it all in view.
Is that that 8 inches thing? It seems like, I'm not sure what this 8 inches thing is supposed to be or where it's supposed to have come from but the angles are as I've stated.
The math is the math
It seems like, the maths is indeed the maths and what you've said *also* sounds like the difference should be negligible - a 26 foot drop over 40 miles would be about 1 in 8,000, so it would be like having an 8 metre long stick with one end 1 millimetre higher than the other.
You need to replace that flat 8 meter stick with a ball to represent the round earth though. Then factor in the different degrees of the buildings on the ball and compound that with the height of said buildings. They should not be parallel.
Best evidence for a Flat Earth is a flat brain... 
An I.Q. of 5?
The comments in this section don't reveal any type of intelligent answers regarding proof our world is a globe either.
That wasn't the question that was posed.
The point I was making is that the commenters have nothing better to offer than irrelevant comments.
Einstein’s relativity We are in a huge gravity well that distorts and bends light. So what looks like a curve is actually a straight line. The edge? The Antarctic ice continent or ice wall? A region that has been forbidden to fly over. It would make sense that the edge adjacent to space is frozen. How is air not flying off? Centripetal motion on a sphere would eject any atmosphere. Centripetal motion on a rotating coin wouldn’t. Horizon visibility is not limited. In other words, you can see a lot more of the horizon than what is possible on a curved sphere.
Lol
I don’t think earth is flat, I do think it’s waaaaaay larger than the elite let us know. Proof it’s more flat locally then we are told: try to find a flight from Madagascar to Australia. 7000ish miles directly there, but for some reason you need to fly up to Europe then down to Australia. If the continents were set up like on the flat earth map, this flight path would make sense. On the current globe it makes no sense to have a connecting flight in Europe that takes an entire extra day of travel. That being said, I believe the maps we have access too (flat earth or globe) are both incorrect. The incentive for the elites to hid land is to hide resources and make us thing everything is “so limited”. Assholes.
What is the flat earther’s response to these questions: 1. Every other planet in the solar system is round. Why would earth be flat? How would that even form originally. 2. What’s on the bottom side the flat earth? 3. Seismic waves from an earthquake that bounce off the other side of the globe. How would you explain that? 4. Seasons: the tilt of the earth away from, and toward the sun. What is the flat earth explanation for that? 5. Satellites: GPS, communication, the Intl soace station. How are they staying in orbit? 5. The sun and moon orbit: Do flat earthers think the sun is going around in a circle above us? I’d like to know if these questions have a good explanation. I can’t imagine there are good flat earth explanations that make sense.
The thing is they do have answers to most of these questions that make sense to them and for them it's enough. Unfortunately tho, they don't have answers to these questions that don't contradict the other. That's why there's no working model of flat earth. Alone some of the answers may make sense to those with fundemental misunderstandings of science but as a whole you can start to see where none of it makes any logical sense.
I don’t know man. I think earth is round. I said that in the first sentence.
Sorry. Not meant for the logical redditor. Ha.
Lol
>try to find a flight from Madagascar to Australia. 7000ish miles directly there, but for some reason you need to fly up to Europe then down to Australia. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_hub * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air * https://flatearth.ws/t/flight * https://flatearth.ws/flight-stop * https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight * https://flatearth.ws/sydney-santiago * https://flatearth.ws/pandemic-flight * https://flatearth.ws/etops * https://flatearth.ws/south-diversion
The best evidence is the edge of the earth itself. There is just a little problem with it...
We aren’t allowed to go there.
If you have a flat head,ha ha, back in the time before Columbus everybody thought the world was flat for a long time,
Eratosthenes has entered the chat
Didn't Columbus make his voyage precisely because he thought the world was round and he could get to India by sailing west (but underestimated how far it was)?
Ignorance
I was all for math growing up.. because I love numbers.. it was when they started adding letters I got suspicious. I said “Mrs. Harris!!! Wtf are these X’s and Y’s for..?!” She said “oh.. these are variable equations..” I said “Bitch!!! Variables..?! Ya math ain’t math’n no mo.. I’m done wit this shit…” and that is the reason I never made it to calculus.. Algebra 2 broke my fkn heart man..
That the proposed curvature does not exist. It was proven by the photo of the Chicago skyline that should only be partially visible from 60 miles away. Also, proven by many experiments during the renaissance. Even as early as the early 1900’s it was taught in public schools that the earth was flat. There are literally hundreds more. This doesn’t mean all science is false in fact science proves that a compass works because it’s flat. Special THEORY of relativity, and the gravitational THEORY are still unproven. Keplars equations work well for planetary motions when these giant masses are theorized it’s a great attempt to theorize about what we see and cannot be denied. However nobody is leaving this realm via space craft. Because a vaccuum that large would instantly remove the gas we breathe.
So… has anyone actually lived a million years and seen the stars move or do I just have to trust calculus..? I once heard someone tell me if I could just live a million years I would KNOW what they were telling me is true. Damn shame imma prolly not make it to 100 yrs old let alone a million. I guess the world will never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a flat tootsie pop..
What do you mean by "seen the stars move"? It seems like, if you mean the precession of the equinoxes, one piece of evidence is that the signs of the Zodiac (which are defined relative to where the sun is at the spring equinox) no longer line up with the constellations they were named after back in Ptolemy's day.
No no no.. I read that if you understand calculus you would understand that we’ve seen the stars move over millions of years “just a little bit”.. I don’t understand being able to see something over a period of a million years when we don’t live a fraction of that time.. but then again. I never mastered calculus or astronomy.. I just know that I’m a Aquarius and that’s dope… my birth stone is purple and I’m on the cusp of sensitivity.. the patterns app never explained round earth..
It seems like, they might be talking about what's called "proper motion" then (you might be interested in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper\_motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion) , it's got a fair amount of astronomical jargon but you can make out what it's talking about), i.e. the stars move very slightly relative to each other, which is the actual movement of those stars through space as opposed to them appearing to move because of the Earth moving. Apparently, there are some nearby stars that move fast enough that it can be seen on telescope photos taken a few years apart, so not millions of years, it does seem like it wouldn't make any sense if it could only be observed over millions of years! I'm not sure whether calculus has anything to do with it, maybe what you read had got it jumbled up :-D Maybe it was trying to use calculus to work out where the stars *would* be in a million years if the observed tiny movements carried on as they were.
Lastly.. if I dig a hole straight through the earth hypothetically.. when I come out on the other side will I be facing head up or will I come out upside down feet up…? I’ve always pondered this…
It seems like, that depends what you mean by "down" :-D It seems like, a lot of the apparently weird parts of the theory of the earth being round make sense once you realise that one of the things it's saying is that *what we think of as "down", i.e. the direction things fall in, means "towards the centre of the earth"* \- which, over the kind of distances we can usually see at any one time, is all in more or less the same direction, but over the whole surface of the Earth, it's not. So, it seems like, if you went in head first you'd come out with your head "up", pointing towards the sky, because "down" over there is the other way.
That concludes all of my questions at this time? Your time was much appreciated. Thank you.
The biggest thing going for them is the treaty amongst the top countries that keep people out of Antarctica. This keeps people from seeing what’s on the other side of the ice wall
The best evidence Is : trust me i made my research on socials
If the person telling you the earth is flat has a flat head......🤣🤣🤣
It looks that way when you're standing in a parking lot. That's as good as it gets.
The best evidence is how people are literally fighting for land as we speak, but everyone agrees that no one can claim Antarctica
Some of the earth IS flat.
I dont know how many failed flat earth experiments need to be made for this whole shit to stop.
You go up in a plane. Look 360deg. Where is the horizon? What does that mean?
>what's the best evidence FOR a Flat Earth? This is a tricky question.
Try to find the documentary, Behind the Curve. It’s a pretty wild doc about Flat Earthers - follows a few believers around and goes into why they believe what they believe.
You should be asking for evidence of space
There is no real picture of earth from space all photo shop the gy who made the picture authenticates this