This might be a little long but I have no one to talk to about this. I’ve recently come to the realization of flat earth but I admit there are a few things that hold me back. To me FE just makes more sense. I’ve always (as a kid) thought it odd that we are spinning and that people in the south are upside down but just figured that really smart people just figured it out and my mind is just too simple. When I read comments of globe proponents on different threads they pretty much do use that thinking in their arguments that “flerfs” just don’t understand physics and that we need to go back to school. I fully admit I don’t understand physics so is it possible that is why I don’t understand the globe? Are all these people in the comments section that much more enlightened on physics than me and that is why it makes sense to them? In my mind I’ve always thought that anything under high pressure needs a container so that’s why a firmament makes sense for me, but then I read people in the comments saying “have you ever heard of pressure gradient ?” And that “Denver would disagree”. It is true our atmosphere gets thinner and thinner as we go up, is that enough reason to not need a physical barrier? Why does it get thinner as we go up? There are days when I’m so sure the earth is not a spinning globe especially because of the fact that we can see too far, but then there are days when I think how can so many very smart people be fooled? I know I’m not smarter than them so how I can I figure it out and not them? I’m not going to lie, it bothers me I haven’t been able to find any astronomers or astrophysicists that believe in flat earth. What are they seeing that I’m not? Why do they think the stars are that far away? These are things that conflict me.
top of page
THE FLAT EARTH
FILES PODCAST
bottom of page
Regarding gravity holding the atmosphere in place: NASA says that we lose several hundred tons of atmosphere to outer space each day. So apparently, not even the Great and Powerful Gravity can trap everything here on Earth: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144386/toward-mapping-the-atmospheres-escape-from-earth
"Are all these people in the comments section that much more enlightened on physics than me".....No, they are not.
OK
Hi Katie,
First of all, it’s great that you don’t just blindly accept either argument and are actually thinking critically.
As for “pressure without a container” and people “standing upside down” these are both easily explained by gravity. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth and gravity pulls everything towards the center of a mass (like earth) so that “down” is always “towards the center of gravity” or towards the center of earth.
You’ll notice that FE’s rebut these points by simply saying gravity isn’t real. They don’t offer a comprehensive and resonable alternative explanation for the force we all experience that we call “gravity.”
Instead, they say that “buoyancy and density” do all the work without the need for gravity. There’s one problem with this - buoyancy requires gravity to work the way it does, and in fact the mathematical equation for determining an objects buoyancy requires the acceleration of gravity as a variable.
FE’s will also claim gravity is “only a theory.” This is a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in a scientific context.
The existence of the force we call gravity is not a theory any more than the existence of the color red is a “theory.” We all observe this force constantly. The “theory” is how that force works and what causes it. Just like we know red exists, but interplay of subatomic particles and our eyeballs -ie how the color red “works” - is often theoretical.
Well the entire basis of the flat earth argument is the sun has to be local. There are tools you can use to actually look at the sun, passed all of its glare, which most of you actually think is the sun and it isnt.
Eric Dubay, David Weiss, Nathan Oakley, The fittest flat earther, unanimously suggest that the sun must be local.
All it takes is a piece of baader film or a solar filter and a camera. Take two pictures one in the morning, one in the afternoon. Same focal length. The sun doesn't drastically change in size. To me that suggests that the Sun isn't in fact close to the Earth and is in fact far away, really far away. If you listen to any of the above flat earthers I mentioned above. You've heard them all talk about angular resolution. From my observations the sun does not shrink. It might appear that way to the naked eye because you're not actually seeing the Sun. It's hidden away in the middle of all the glare. It stays relatively the same size throughout the entire day as the sun arcs/traverses all the way across the sky.
That dramatically throws the argument towards the heliocentric model, because if the sun isn't local nothing else makes sense. Almost every argument completely falls apart. The implications of a sun that isn't local would imply that the planets are real, & space is real. Then it becomes increasingly difficult to challenge observation of those said planets which seem to be spherical.
I don't have any fancy degrees in anything. I do construction for living. Us ordinary people, Do it fact, have very limited ways of measuring things but that one seems pretty straightforward, & simple to do. It kind of throws a wrench in the entire Flat Earth argument. Because for the argument to even work the Sun has to be local.
Well Katie, I think you answered your own question within the first two sentences. Have a nice day.
I too am a flat earther not necessarily because I understand the physics and mathmatical equations that get thrown around by both sides but because FE makes sense and I believe my God given senses. I have met someone who went to college for 4 years for astronomy and he is a flat earther. I went to a FE meet up near me and he was there.
For the record, it is very difficult to prove flat or globe while on the surface. Hence, the centuries old debate. "Proofs" can be sited from either side. However, the lack of curvature in experiments and non-fisheye videos dramatically throws the argument into FE favor. That's where the scientism comes in with a kaleidoscope of infinite fabrications and straight up fantasy presented as fact in digital cartoons. Remember, 400 years after Newton, they still can't find gravity, which is the foundation of scientism. We're not up against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. They've pulled out the stops in deceiving the world with helio-centrism.
I believe it comes down to believing and accepting in the Most High God and His spirit.
It could also be the ability to admit you've been fooled and are now willing to trust your God given senses over what mainstream and other majorities tell you.
Anyone who thinks that having a phd or doctorate or any amount of college recognition gives them credibility over others has not accepted God.
No one becomes a 'credible' astronomer or astrophysicist without denying God first.
They are not willing to give up their following or their credentials by publicly admitting they believe in God, have been fooled, or to go against those who sign their paycheck.