Introduction
I can well understand the appeal of Socratic discussion (say in a High School debating society, or in the pub after a few beers); arguing from a standpoint that you don’t seriously believe, or considering alternative explanations for things that we take for granted, and seeing if they stand up to scientific scrutiny. Great fun!
Flat Earth is a case in point… we all have deeply held preconceptions about the shape of the Earth. We grew up with educational globes, we’ve seen images from space, we’ve seen ships disappear over the horizon, we’re told that most celestial objects are spherical.
So it would seem like quite a challenge to argue in favour of a flat Earth, but I’ve seen it done, and it can be quite entertaining. I’ve sat round a pub table with some friends, and someone has said “if I say the Earth is flat, how would you go about proving me wrong?”, and we have an entertaining hour or so with people saying things like “how would satellites orbit a flat Earth”, to which he might respond “there’s no such thing as satellites; they are projected points onto the roof of the dome”.
Occasionally the person taking this position is stumped by someone’s rational objection, and he/she will say “give me a minute to think about that one”, and eventually come back with an answer. As the process continues into the night, it’s often the case that there’s no ‘Gotcha!’ moment, but on the other hand, the model is looking increasingly shaky and only holds together because of the group’s advanced intoxication.
Flat-Earth organisations
Cue the Flat Earth Society and their spin-offs. These are a bunch of (mostly) earnest and well intentioned people who possibly started off with hypothetical discussions like I describe. But as the years have gone by, their answers to rational objections got more and more rehearsed and refined, and they maintain that the idea of a spherical Earth represents a cover-up of monumental proportions.
Their claims
Flat-Earthers tend to come from the perspective that since the horizon is flat and everywhere looks flat, it’s not much of a stretch to assume that the Earth is flat. They also seem to have trouble with the idea that the Earth is not only moving through space, but it’s spinning on it’s axis… and all without any sense of motion.
To maintain this position, they are refuting conventional wisdom, and everything they were taught at school, and so if they are to be taken seriously, they feel obliged to come up with alternate explanations.
Sadly, the flat-Earthers stock answers although mostly lacking any scientific basis, are sufficiently plausible to many of their followers that they begin to believe this variety of ‘science’, and suddenly the line between fantasy and reality becomes blurred.
The above photo is a typical example of flat-Earth ‘science’. Spin is not measured in mph. They are alluding to the fact that the equator is roughly 24,000 miles long and the Earth rotates every 24 hours, so the linear velocity at the equator is around 1,000 mph relative to some arbitrary point in space. It’s pretty meaningless since as well as the Earth rotating around it’s axis, it’s orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, the Sun (and the Solar System) are orbiting the Milky Way Galaxy at 483,000 mph, and the galaxy is moving through space at around 1.3 million mph.
And mph is a measure of linear velocity, whereas spin is angular velocity, measure in rotation divided by time. The angular velocity of the Earth is 360 degrees per day, or 0.0007 rpm.
In asking “where is the sense of motion?“, they are displaying an ignorance of Newton’s Laws of Motion, that movement, spin, etc. will continue uninterrupted unless acted on by another force. We only feel motion in planes, trains, cars, etc. because of acceleration or deceleration, or because of turbulence, and imperfections in the track or road.
For the record, I’ve been picking up my information on flat-Earth theory from various public forums, but also web sites like https://www.tfes.org/ and https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/. Of them all, it seems that TFES has the most refined and coherent philosophies, so most of my comments are based on what I found there.
Conventional wisdom
There’s this thing called the Standard Cosmological Model, millennia in the making, which represents a scientifically consistent understanding of the Earth, the cosmos, and our place in it.
The standard cosmological model, is a scientific theory, and the conventional use of the word theory means that some people might think “Ah, it’s just a guess then”. In reality, a scientific theory is a lot more than that; Wikipedia says:
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge”.
In other words, a scientific theory is the best explanation of what we can see or measure. It allows us to make predictions about how things will behave, given certain starting conditions, but note that it doesn’t necessarily explain why things behave that way.
The standard cosmological model is a highly refined scientific theory, that explains virtually everything we can see or measure in the cosmos, and allows us to make accurate predictions of future events, such as the path of comets and asteroids that may intersect with the Earth, and the coming-together of our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy in around 4 billion years time. It also is the basis for our own explorations such as the Apollo missions, Voyager 1 and 2, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the probes that are currently making detailed studies of the Sun, Mars, and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.
Perhaps predictably, it was the ancient Greeks who laid the foundations of our modern understanding of the cosmos, starting with Aristarchus of Samos who first proposed the heliocentric model, more than 2,000 years ago.
Then a contemporary of his, Eratosthenes of Cyrene noticed that vertical sticks cast shadows of different lengths at different latitudes, and realised that the Earth was a sphere. He knew that at Cyrene (today’s Luxor near the Tropic of Cancer) at noon on the summer solstice, a vertical stick would cast no shadow. He then repeated the exercise at Alexandria on the same day the following year. He measured the length of the shadow there, and knowing that the distance between the two observations was 800km, he was able to calculate that it’s circumference was 44,100 km… only 15% different from what we now know.
Since then, the Earth has been observed from a distance; they’ve also photographed it, surveyed it, measured it, mapped it, triangulated it, excavated it, orbited it, and even weighed it. Furthermore, observation tells us that every other celestial body larger than a few hundred km has, thanks to the effects of gravity, ended up as a sphere. There’s no known mechanism whereby something as large as the Earth could be anything other than a sphere.
The Flat-Earth movement
The modern Flat-Earth movement was probably started by a 19th century character called Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham who enjoyed some notoriety with some pretty unconventional ideas. Except it turns out that there was no Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham. There was a bit of a showman called Samuel Birley Rowbotham who surrounded himself with unsavoury characters, and who’s theories were discredited in his own lifetime. In an attempt to give himself some (unwarranted) credibility, he decided to award himself doctorate. He wrote a book called Zetetec which to some people is the ‘flat-Earther’s Bible’.
Sadly, none of his theories standup to any modern scrutiny. For example, when challenged to explain why the northern hemisphere sees different constellations to the southern hemisphere, Rowbotham claimed this was nonsense and that (for instance) Polaris was visible from all parts of the Earth. At that time, he could say pretty well anything, and the average person wouldn’t be able to disprove it. But now we can all travel, we can checkout the science, we can observe for ourselves, and flat-Earth theory is so easy to disprove. However Rowbotham remains the flat-Earther’s inspiration, even though some of his pronouncements are clearly an embarrassment for them.
We see under the heading Foucault Pendulum:
“Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham discusses the Foucault Pendulum and its movements in Chapter 14, Section 8 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham provides additional insight in Chapter 14, Section 21.
Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault’s original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendula are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth’s surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault’s experiments.”
…and on light, he says:
“It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium.”
It’s pseudo-scientific gibberish, but sounds plausible to the uninitiated. As Wolfgang Pauli might have observed: these utterings are “not only not right, but they are not even wrong!”
Then flat-Earth became an unfashionable topic and it all but disappeared. Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet, and with it the rise of cults, and conspiracy theories, flat-Earth interest has returned.
And the different flat-Earth groups, and even members within a group fail to agree on fundamentals such as what is gravity, whether the disk is at rest or not, how big it is, what the stars are, what the planets are, the mechanism for lunar and solar eclipses, whether there is a dome, and if it’s transparent, or are all astronomical objects projected on the inside of the dome, etc.
In fact, as you’ll see below, many elements of flat-Earth theory cannot be reconciled with each other, so as a competing theory to the standard cosmological model, flat-Earth theory is a non-starter.
The Sun and a flat Earth
The Flat-Earth answer to Eratosthenes experiment is to say that the Sun isn’t 93 million miles away as mainstream science tells us, but is actually only 3,000 miles away. And so because of perspective, of course the two sticks would cast different shadows. And the reason why we’re not burned to a crisp is that the FE Sun is only 32 miles across. But sadly, they offer no plausible explanation as to what keeps such a tiny Sun burning after nearly 5 billion years.
They also have the Sun in a perfectly circular orbit with a varying radius to explain the seasons. It has an orbit that follows the Tropic of Cancer (at the summer solstice) and the Tropic of Capricorn (at the winter solstice), and spends the rest of the time somewhere in between the two tropics. The tropics on a flat-Earth are concentric circles, and a little maths shows that the Tropic of Cancer must be 22,859 miles long and the Tropic of Capricorn 26,929 miles long. They propose no mechanism whereby the radius of the Sun’s orbit is constantly changing, nor for the Sun’s change in velocity to accommodate the different orbital lengths in the same 24-hour period.
So if the Sun (and the Moon) are always be above the equatorial zone (ie. between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer), as can be seen from this image, they are both always above the Earth; as such, they are forced to get a little creative when explaining sunset and sunrise.
The TFES website says:
“Although the sun is at all times above the earth’s surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective… When a plane flies away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon”.
Except that this is woolly reasoning… Firstly, a plane tends to fly 6 or 7 miles high, but the flat-Earth model has the Sun at 3,000 miles above the Earth’s surface. At 9:00 pm, it’s still noon 9 time zones (and more than 6,000 miles) to the west, so the Sun will still be 20-odd degrees above the horizon. Nowhere on a flat-Earth could the Sun get even close to the horizon.
And secondly, a plane gets smaller as it heads towards the horizon. Unfortunately for Flat-Earth theory, to an observer anywhere on Earth, the sun is always the same apparent size, whatever the time of day. The TFES website adds:
“As the sun descends it will create a tangent into the horizon. The perspective lines nearly merge, causing the receding body to appear to collapse in on itself. Next the light of the receding sun is dimmed to blackness by a non-transparent atmosphere”. (!)
They don’t tackle the issue of why, if the atmosphere is ‘non-transparent’, the only places to experience midnight sun in the summer months are the polar regions, ie. furthest from the Sun’s ‘orbit’. Nor how in other cooler regions around Midsummer, it’s possible to follow the progress of the sun just below the northern horizon.
Perhaps more importantly, as mentioned earlier they don’t have a plausible explanation why the Sun appears at a constant size, and moves with a constant speed. Their Sun, only 3,000 miles above the Earth would be noticeably larger when it’s on the near side of it’s ‘orbit’, and incidentally, it should appear to move faster as it gets closer.
Let’s explore this for a moment, and assume it’s the summer solstice in the northern hemisphere, so the Sun will be over the Tropic of Cancer. Conventional science says that the Sun is around 93 million miles away, so where you stand on Earth or time of day, would make no difference to the perceived (angular) size of the Sun. It’s always about ½ a degree, or about the size of a pea at arms length.
On a flat-Earth with the Sun only 32 miles across, there are times when it’s going to be much closer to an observer than others. So a little maths… let’s assume it’s noon, and the observer is in London. The distance to the Tropic of Cancer (TOC) is 1934 miles, and the FE Sun is 3,000 miles above the TOC, so some Pythagoras yields a distance from the observer to the Sun as 3,569 miles. According to the laws of perspective, the angular diameter of the Sun at this point can be calculated by:
α = 2*arctan(s/(2d)) where s = actual size, and d = distance.
This gives an angular diameter of 0.51 of a degree, which is about what we observe.
At sunset, of course the sun will still be above the TOC, but it will be around 9 time zones to the west, so the distance from London to this point of the TOC will now be around 6,600 miles, so more Pythagoras gives us a distance from the observer of 7,250 miles and an angular size of 0.25 degrees; around half the angular size of the noonday (FE) Sun. And as mentioned above, the Sun would still be around 20 degrees above the horizon.
So quite simply, it seems that the laws of perspective only hold true on a flat-Earth, at noon when the Sun is highest. The same laws of perspective say that at sunset on a flat-Earth, the Sun should be about half the size, and clearly that’s not what we observe.
The Flat-Earther’s explanation? It’s a combination of pseudo-science such as the ‘magnifying effects of a dense atmosphere‘, and their well-used fallback position, atmospheric refraction. But as usual, they fail to explain why the perceived sizes of everything other than the Sun do obey the laws of perspective; mountains, buildings, TV masts, etc. do get smaller with distance. This is called cognitive dissonance.
Their problems don’t end there. The standard flat-Earth map shows the North Pole in the middle, and the South Pole as an ice wall around the perimeter, which means that the equator and the tropics describe a circular band between the two poles. So the planet is divided between those that live within this band (what the rest of us call the Northern Hemisphere), and the those that live outside this band (the Southern Hemisphere). Clearly this is problematic for flat-Earthers because the geometry of the Sun’s movement is different for these two cases.
Inside the band, the Sun rotates around us, which offers an explanation for why we see approximately linear motion as it traverses the sky. OK, they need to get creative to explain sunrise and sunsets (see above), but it does at least explain what we observe.
But outside the band, nothing fits what we observe; the geometry is all wrong. Imagine watching an aircraft fly in wide circles in front of us; when it’s at its nearest and furthest point, that’s when we see maximum deflection (sideways motion), but at the extreme left and right points, the aircraft is either coming directly towards us, or directly away from us, and there is no deflection. The motion is not linear but exponential. If you lived in the southern hemisphere on a flat Earth, at dawn and dusk, the Sun would be coming towards you or going away from you and have very little sideways motion. In reality of course, the Sun moves with constant linear motion, and (believe it or not) moves by the equivalent of it own diameter every two minutes.
The Moon and Flat Earth
All Flat-Earth maps show a local Moon in a similar orbit to the Sun. Unfortunately, just as with the Sun, Flat-Earthers have no convincing explanation for what keeps such a Moon in it’s tight orbit above the Earth.
Their explanation for Lunar Eclipses involves something unseen and unknown to science, called a ‘shadow object’ which supposedly hovers above the Earth in a similar way to the Sun and Moon, and occasionally gets in between the two, causing a shadow to pass across the face of the Moon.
And just as with the Sun, they can’t explain why the Moon remains the same size regardless of where it is in the orbit. In other words, the usual laws of perspective don’t seem to apply.
They can’t explain why the Moon appears ‘upside-down’ to observers in the southern hemisphere.
What we do know about the Moon is that its phases are due to the relative positions of the Moon, the Sun and the observer. But we also know that the current phase is the same for ALL Earth-bound observers. And we also know that only one face of the Moon is seen from Earth.
Referring to the earlier Flat-Earth illustration, it’s quickly apparent that a local Moon would show different phases to different observers, and would also show different faces to different observers.
Conclusion: A local Moon is clearly impossible.
To give some idea of the flawed science used by the Flat Earthers, there’s an article on the TFES website under the heading ‘The Full Moon is Impossible in Round Earth Theory’. It shows diagrams with hugely exaggerated scale, supposedly proving that at Full Moon, a spherical Earth would always be between the Sun and the Moon so “the earth would get in the way of the sunlight” (ie. a Lunar Eclipse). A little investigation would have shown that the moon’s orbit around the Earth is inclined by some 5.14° to Earth’s own orbit around the Sun. Which is why we observe full moons. It also explains why Lunar Eclipses are relatively infrequent.
More dodgy science
As we’ve seen with the Sun, some of their assertions may answer one question, but it often amounts to digging a hole for themselves.
For instance, they are forced to accept that the conventional (Newtonian/Einsteinian) theories of gravity do not work on a flat Earth. On a sphere, we always stand over the centre of mass, and the pull of gravity is always straight down (BTW, that’s why spheres form that way!). On a flat Earth model, the centre of mass would be under the centre, ie the North Pole. Since few people live at or near the North Pole, the pull most of us would experience would never be straight down. The further you are from the centre of mass, the more gravity would become a lateral force, until as you approach the edges of the disk, it would seem like you’re climbing an almost vertical slope. Clearly, this doesn’t happen.
The Flat-Earthers answer depends on which group you ask. Mostly they say “There’s no such thing as gravity”, but then they fail to agree on what it is that keeps us stuck to the ground. Some say “it’s the pressure of the atmosphere (!)”, Others say “it’s an electro-magnetic effect”.Theflatearthsociety says “Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall (!)”. And TFES says “the Earth is being accelerated upwards at a rate of 9.8 m / sec2”.
And I even spotted this one: “There’s no gravity but there is a repulsive force at the edge called soul magnetism and the subconscious navigation force (!)”.
Unfortunately, none of them offer any plausible science behind these ‘explanations’. For example (re the TFES explanation) of what force is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards. The best that they could come up with is variously described as Universal Acceleration, dark energy or ‘aetheric wind’.
Since, the Sun is inside the dome of the flat-Earth, the idea of the Earth orbiting some larger celestial body is too tricky for them, so they are forced to conclude (depending on which flat-Earth model they are advocating), that the Earth is either stationary or is moving slowly (but independently) through the cosmos. Some argue that the Earth is also not rotating. Either way, they are forced to deny the existence of the rest of the Solar System.
A common meme amongst Flat-Earthers is that since the availability of superzoom cameras such as the Nikon P900, if you think you’re watching a ship disappear over the horizon, using your P900 will magically restore the ship to completeness. The irony is that flat-Earthers may talk the talk, but the moment they try it is the moment they stop being a flat-Earther. Here’s a shot I took recently with my own superzoom.
Adherents are fond of saying things like “How come Polaris is exactly above the north pole?”, when a little research would show them that actually the North Celestial Pole is a point some 0.75° from Polaris.
A lot of flat-Earthers argue in favour of a firmament. In other words when we look at the night sky and think we’re seeing the Cosmos, they say we’re actually seeing marks or projections on the inside of a dome. What they fail to account for is that far from being a fixed thing, the cosmos is in constant motion. And not just the planets, comets, asteroids, etc…. the stars have real motion, even on human time scales. Barnard’s Star for example moves at over 10 arc seconds a year, and some of the fainter stars have even greater real motion. In a few millennia, some of our familiar constellations will look very different.
Flat-Earthers are not scientifically astute enough to realise the scope and strength of the accepted model of the natural world, and how all the categories and sub-categories of science neatly interlock, and mutually support each other.
For example, Earth sciences (such as Geology, Atmospheric sciences, Hydrology, Palaeoclimatology, etc.) has an intimate relationship with Chemistry (Crystallography, Biochemistry, Materials science, Metallurgy, etc.) as well as Physics (Mechanics, Optics, Atomic physics, Thermodynamics).
Tinker with this model and the whole thing comes down like a house of cards! But that’s exactly what they do… they cherry-pick the bits of the standard model that work for them, but mix it up with a type of techno-babble, often so meaningless that it’s difficult to argue with. Five minutes on their web site and one is forced to conclude that their theories are designed for persuading the gullible rather than offering a plausible alternative to conventional science.
For example, so as to give their theories some credence, they include sections on (say) Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, because they think it gives them some sort of kudos, and it’s sufficiently abstruse that it doesn’t conflict with the FE model; but then they go and deny gravity, which is central to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
Some real gems on flat-Earth FAQs…
Gravity and tidal effects
Q: What is gravity?
A: In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
…Errm, how? 1) The tides are in sync with the Moon, and there is no other 28 day cycle in sky. 2) The nearest star is 4.2 light years away and the effects of it’s gravity here are negligible. 3) The distribution of stars is pretty uniform with no significant clustering, and anyway the stars and the sky complete a revolution every 24 hours.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull. (the moon, but not the sun?)
(actually, the inverse square law means the difference in gravity within the atmosphere is negligible)
Rotundity
Q. If the planets are round, why isn’t the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet
(OK, what is it?)
Size and magnitude
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.
(Duhh?)
Magnification and shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn’t it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
(’known magnification effect’? ‘strata of the atmolayer’? – see my comments under Occam’s Razor below)
Other theories
Q. What About the ISS and Satellites?
A: While one can see satellites in the sky at night, it is generally agreed upon that they are not actual satellites but pseudolites or stratolites put there to fool us.
Q: What Is Gravity?
A: Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall (!).
Q: Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?
A: No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.
Q: If you believe in the flat Earth, could you explain earthquakes for me?
A: “Everything on earth works to a resonating frequency of vibration, and everything in nature happens for a reason. Earth is surrounded by an eletromagnetic (sic) field of energy . The energy force creates density and pressure, what they call gravity ?? but nothing is sucking you on to earth , it is atmospheric pressure. The eletromagnetic forces of energy are always moving. If you can imagine the energy coming out of the centre of the earth spreading outward you can imagine the earths (sic) land mass spreading outwards. Simply put obviously. It is all magnetism ! ”
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor states that the explanation requiring the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
Under the heading “Occam’s Razor”, TFES says…
What’s the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What’s the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can’t do all of that stuff?
It’s ironic that they use Occam’s Razor to justify their views, considering that the Flat Earth model needs a bucket-load of assumptions, some of them quite outrageous. It offers no plausible explanation as to how a flat Earth came into being; it needs a ‘searchlight sun’ to explain day and night, and something called a ‘shadow object’ to explain Lunar Eclipses. They don’t believe in gravity but do believe in ‘Aetheric Wind’ or ‘Universal Acceleration’. They don’t say what keeps the Sun and Moon in their tight orbit above their model, nor how the two bodies manage to stay 3,000 miles above us.
Conspiracy
The biggest question of all is what is the motivation for the cover-up that they propose? A conspiracy that big must involve all world governments and all physicists, astronomers, surveyors, geographers, pilots, navigators, astronauts, civil engineers, geologists, climatologists, oceanographers, cartographers, etc.
But say that just for a moment, we accept as a premise that their claim is true, and the Earth really is flat… then forget about the New World Order, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, etc., this is one very successful secret organisation. It must be orchestrated and coordinated by some pretty powerful people.
So three thoughts occur… 1) The big one is why go to all the trouble of deceiving everyone about the shape of our planet? 2) What are the chances that a bunch of scientific lightweights have discovered the secret that’s illuded real scientists? 3) Aren’t flat-Earthers afraid of reprisals when their attempts at exposing the secret are discovered?
I think the fact that Flat-Earthers are still amongst us is proof positive that such an organisation doesn’t exist, and there is no conspiracy!
Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, the foundations of standard cosmological model were laid down more than 2,000 years ago by people like Archimedes, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes. Since then, it’s been refined by luminaries such as Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Penrose, and thousands of other, unsung heroes, into something that satisfactorily explains everything we observe, measure and even feel. And it makes accurate, testable predictions of the future state of things
The Flat-Earth on the other hand, fails as a hypothetical model because it has too many unexplained, conflicting, irreconcilable elements, and requires just too many unfounded, untested, even untestable assumptions; most of which fly in the face of conventional science.
It’s beyond the brief of modern science to answer ‘why’ things are the way they are. Flat-Earth theory can’t even answer ‘how’.
There’s no denying that they have gone to a lot of trouble coming up with (semi) plausible explanations for what we observe. The problem is that they don’t stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny, and flat-Earth theory is mostly a collection of conflicting opinions; there is little consensus, and the only things that all flat-Earthers can agree on is “the Earth is flat”!
I’s clear that there are two very different types of flat-Earthers… the leaders and the followers. Where the theory is being promoted by anyone with intellect and some knowledge of the scientific method (the leaders), it must be a spoof… perhaps a Socratic discussion that went public; or more cynically, a profit-making hoax with YouTube click-bait revenue, together with membership dues and magazine subscriptions.
Sadly, we know that there are a lot credulous or gullible people around, who love the idea of an ‘alternate’ view of things; these people are pray to flat-Earth rhetoric and other conspiracy theories, but as a belief system or dogma, not a million miles away from religion. They are ‘the followers’. It’s a shame that this gullible minority is targetted by the unscrupulous ‘leaders’.
But ultimately, everything falls apart because unlike the standard cosmological model, which has been shaped and refined over several millennia and qualifies as a true scientific theory, flat-Earth theory is little more than a collection of conflicting guesses and opinions. Furthermore, since we’re still taught that the Earth is a sphere, the flat-Earth arguments require that there is a huge world-wide conspiracy to keep the flat-Earth a secret, including even the suggestion that Australia doesn’t exist (see below)!
The word ‘why’ springs to mind!
Appendix:
Major holes in flat Earth theory
Here’s a summary of objections to the Flat-Earth model, which are not adequately answered:
- for a start, we know with certainly that the Sun and Moon are not local, as the various flat-Earth models demand. In the case of the Sun, the scientist Cassini was the first to calculate it using the parallax method using Mars as the reference, coming up with the figure of 87 million miles. Subsequent measurements refined this figure to an average distance of 93 million miles, including one proposed by Sir Edmund Halley using a transit of Venus in 1761.
- In the case of the Moon, the venerable Aristarchus of Samos calculated the distance based on the length of time for a Lunar eclipse compared with the 28 days to orbit the Earth. Of course, we now know the distance to within a few meters, thanks to the reflectors left there by the American Apollo missions, and later by Russian and Indian Moon missions. The Moon’s orbit is elliptical (of course) with an apogee of 251,970 miles and a perigee of 225,700 miles. Anyone who still has doubts can enquire with their local astronomical society… the better equipped ones can fire a laser at one of the reflectors and measure the time taken for the beam to return. At the speed of light, it’s around a 2.5 second return trip.
- They can’t explain what mechanism keeps the (local) Sun and the Moon in their tight orbits above the Earth, and what causes the orbit to vary, which the FE model uses to explain the seasons.
- They have no plausible explanation for sunrise and sunset, where a Sun permanently 3,000 miles above the tropics couldn’t get even close to the horizon.
- Their tendency to use refraction to explain any ‘inconvenient’ optical phenomena is ironic since the reality of refraction is the opposite to how flat-earthers use it. Refraction allows us to see beyond the horizon, and tends to ‘flatten’ a spherical Earth, rather than make a flat-Earth look spherical.
- They fail to adequately explain how the Sun stays the same size throughout the day, and therefore breaks the laws of perspective.
- They propose no explanation for the creation of a flat-Earth, totally unique in the cosmos. Nor do they give an age.
- They offer no plausible explanation for the two tides each day, as well as spring and neap tides.
- If we’re not in orbit around a larger body (there’s no such thing as gravity remember?), then how does the parallax method of calculating stellar distances work?
- Foucault Pendulum 1: if the Earth is not rotating, how does the Foucault Pendulum work?
- Foucault Pendulum 2: how is it that the effects of the pendulum differ at different parts of the planets surface? On the North Pole, the period for the pendulum to travel through 360° is 24 hours, in Paris it’s 31.8 hours. On the Equator, it doesn’t rotate at all. On a flat Earth, surely it would be same everywhere?
- As mentioned above, ignoring small stuff like asteroids and comets, and exotic stuff like pulsars and black holes, every celestial object in the observable universe is spherical.
- Their explanation for night and day, as well as time-zones, is a ‘spotlight Sun’, but they propose no plausible mechanism for this.
- They can’t explain why, when the Sun is always above us, why only the polar regions get midnight Sun (and what happens to the ‘Searchlight Sun’ then?
- Given that the Sun and the Moon are in virtually the same orbit in the FE sky, they can only explain the Lunar Eclipse by the presence of a ‘shadow object’, but propose no scientific explanation for this object.
- Domestic satellite dishes point to geostationary satellites. The angle of the dish from the horizontal is a function of latitude, so dishes on the equator point straight up. They have no explanation for this.
- The sky rotates around the North celestial pole in a counter-clockwise direction. But in the southern hemisphere, the sky rotates around the South celestial pole in a clockwise direction. On a flat Earth, rotation would the same direction everywhere.
I also find it odd that flat-Earthers and global Earthers alike, talk about the horizon and how things may (or may not) disappear as they pass over it. Or if you go up a high building with a spirit level, the horizon is slightly lower than horizontal. Of course, these things are true, but things are actually simpler than that… the fact that there is a horizon at all is proof that the Earth is a sphere. You’d never see a sharp horizon on a flat earth! The disappearing-point would only be limited by the transparency of the atmosphere, so distant objects would just be increasingly diffuse.
Furthermore, it’s obvious that the FE model is optimised for acceptance in the northern hemisphere. Here’s one of the more common FE maps:
- In the northern hemisphere, the shape and scale of the countries and continents as represented in their maps, are similar to our standard maps. In the southern hemisphere on a flat-Earth map, the distances and even the shapes of the continents are hugely exaggerated. There are too many people with actual experience of southern geography for the FE model to gain any serious acceptance.
For example Australia is around 2,000 miles from north to south, and 2,500 miles from west to east. On the FE map, it’s flattened to a ratio of around 5:1, so if the width of 2,500 miles is taken as accurate, the height can only be around 500 miles. So it’s very easy to disprove the FE rendition of Australia. Of course South America and most of Africa is similarly distorted. - Another effect of ‘flattening the globe’ is to move between non-Euclidian geometry to Euclidian geometry. On a curved surface (non-Euclidian geometry) a triangle’s interior angles add up to more that 180 degrees. Taking the Earth as an example, if you start at the north-pole, travel south for about 6,200 miles, turn right and travel in a straight line for another 6,200 miles, then turn right again and keep straight for a further 6,200 miles, you’ll find yourself back at the north pole having completed a triangle with interior angles totalling 270 degrees. The same manoeuvre on a flat-Earth would leave you 6,200 miles from the pole!
- Another consequence of changing geometries is that the distances are all wrong. The equator is a fraction over 6,200 miles from the north and south poles, and the equator is 24,900 miles in circumference. Using flat (Euclidian) geometry, this doesn’t compute (try it!)
- The distance from Perth in Western Australia to Buenos Aires (Argentina) is around 7,800 miles and a flight would actually take you over Antarctica. However, according to the FE map, they are on the opposite side of the disk from each other, some 20,000 miles apart, and suggesting that the shortest distance is actually over the North Pole!
- Flat-Earthers says the ‘known’ part of the flat Earth is 25,000 miles across, and Antarctica is depicted as a strip around the edge. A plane can fly around the coastline of Antarctica in around 10 hours, but the Flat Earth model shows Antarctica as a band around the circumference of the Earth, ergo some 79,000 miles long. Ermm… the plane would need to travel at 8,000 mph!
- And staying with Antarctica: The journey from the Transantarctic Mountains (110 degrees W, say around 10 o’clock on the FE map) to the Bush Mountains (88 degrees E, 3 o’clock on the FE map), is around 600 miles; it could be undertaken with a dog team and sled in a week or so, or by a snowcat in a few days.
The same journey according to flat-Earthers would involve travelling around the circumference of the Earth, from 10 o’clock on a clock face to 3 o’clock… nearly halfway round (25,000 x π / 2) comes to somewhere just under 39,275 miles!
On a flat-Earth, there is only one sky, and subject to seeing conditions, everything in it will be visible by everyone. Sadly (for flat-Earthers) the reality is somewhat different:
- The night sky in the southern hemisphere has the Southern Cross and all sorts of constellations and deep sky objects that we don’t see in the northern hemisphere. Conversely, people living in the southern hemisphere can’t see Polaris, Ursa Major, Cassiopeia, etc.
- In the southern hemisphere, the Moon appears upside down, but the FE model does not account for this.
- Also, a Moon orbiting above a flat-Earth would show different phases to different parts of the Earth. In reality, everyone everywhere sees the same Moon-phase.
- The sky rotates around the North celestial pole in a counter-clockwise direction. But in the southern hemisphere, the sky rotates around the South celestial pole in a clockwise direction. On a flat Earth, rotation would the same direction everywhere.
- It gets worse for flat-Earth theory… on a sphere, there’s a single north and a single south, and of course the Earth’s axis defines where they are. On a flat Earth north is in the centre, so if south is defined as the opposite direction to north, south is all directions! If the Earth were flat, people in South America, Australia, and Africa will all see different night skies if they look ‘south’, in fact Australia’s ‘south’ is the opposite direction to South America’s ‘south’!
Australia is a hoax:
UNSW Flat Earth Society
October 13, 2017 ·
Australia is not real. It’s a hoax, made for us to believe that Britain moved over their criminals to someplace. In reality, all these criminals were loaded off the ships into the waters, drowning before they could see land ever again. It’s a cover-up for one of the greatest mass murders in history, made by one of the most prominent empires.
Australia does not exist. All things you call “proof” are actually well fabricated lies and documents made by the leading governments of the world. Your Australian friends? They’re all actors and computer generated personas, part of the plot to trick the world.
If you think you’ve ever been to Australia, you’re terribly wrong. The plane pilots are all in on this, and have in all actuality only flown you to islands close nearby – or in some cases, parts of South America, where they have cleared space and hired actors to act out as real Australians.
Australia is one of the biggest hoaxes ever created, and you have all been tricked. Join the movement today, and make it known that they have been deceived. Make it known, that this has all just been a cover-up. The things these “Australian” says to be doing, all these swear words and actions based on alcoholism, MDMA and bad decisions, are all ways to distract you from the ugly truth that is one of the greatest genocides in history. 162,000 people was said to have been transported to this imaginary land during a mere 80 years, and they are all long dead by now. They never reached that promised land.
Tell the truth. Stand up for what is right. Make sure to spread the world – Australia is not real. It’s a codeword for the cold blooded murder of more than a hundred thousand people, and it is not okay. We will not, accept this.
Stand up for the ones who died. Let it be known, that Australia does not exist.
Further reading:
A while ago, someone called Eric Dubay created a YouTube video called ‘200 proofs the Earth is not a spinning ball’ which I’m sure he hoped would earn him some click-bait revenue. Here’s a link to a comprehensive refutation of this video: https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/11/refutation-200-flat-earth-proofs-by.html
Flat-Earther’s when trying to explain horizons, perspective, disappearing points, etc., are fond of calculating the curvature using this 8″ x miles^2 equation which is actually rough estimate, and only works for shorter distances. You can trivially see that this equation is a parabola and not a circular curve.
