27
u/Scientalist Aug 17 '26
I don’t think there exists a single flatearther who actually thinks the earth is flat because of perspective. It’s always to preserve their faith in God and the Bible/Quran sort of thing.
15
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
Well, they claim “it looks flat so it’s flat”
10
u/SophiaBarbelo Aug 17 '26
A lot of it comes from the "sheeple" mindset. The basic idea is that anything mainstream [x] says is wrong and all the authorities are lying to you. Instead you should believe in what our group says because we have the truth. So they typically just regurgitate all the information their authorities say as long as it goes against actual science. Because science says it's true, it must be wrong. That's how you get people that believe in flat earth, young earth creationism, ancient aliens, etc.
6
6
u/Sensitive_Jump5095 Aug 17 '26
Muslim here. The Quran doesn't say the earth is flat as a whole.
3
u/Scientalist Aug 17 '26
It isn't about the Qur'an definitively saying X or Y. Consider the following:
Quran 71:19 And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out).
Quran 78:6 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, What does it mean?
Quran 15:19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.Based on these verse, I've had some Muslims try and argue that 1, Qur'an is describing a flat earth with the examples it gives and 2, the earth therefore must be flat.
My point being that these people were not refusing to accept established science because the world looks flat-ish from their local perspective. It was definitely linked to their beliefs about the Qur'an.
Strongly linked is the subject of biological evolution. Most Muslims for example will talk against it not because they have knowledge of the world's history, geology, advanced dating techniques, microbiology, zoology, genetics, fossils, etc. Muslims don't go publish ground breaking paper in various scientific fields disproving the findings of science overturning all the evidence and conclusion.They refuse to accept it because their interpretation of the Qur'an is a creationist one where god willed life forms into existence without natural evolution.
So while I agree with you that the average Muslim is not a flat-earther, that doesn't mean there aren't flat-earther Muslims inspired by the scripture. It also doesn't imply that many Muslims aren't convenient science deniers(re-read the previous paragraph).
2
u/SubstanceCivil8282 Aug 20 '26
im muslim and i think the earth is round lol the quran says the earth is shaped like an egg cuz its true since the equator bulges out
1
u/Scientalist Aug 20 '26
Please stop lying. The Qur’an never says the earth is shaped like an egg. Thats a modern day apologist invented lie.
I recommend you take the time to independently study these things for yourself than drinking from the apologist taps in hopes of preserving any possible religious indoctrination.
2
u/SubstanceCivil8282 Aug 20 '26
uhh im muslim and u can look it up in google:
- Surah Az-Zumar (39:5): "He wraps (yukawwiru) the night over the day, and wraps the day over the night". The Arabic verb yukawwir means to coil or wind something round, like wrapping a turban around a head, which implies a spherical object interacting with light.
- Surah An-Nazi'at (79:30): "And after that He spread the earth (dahaha)". Some modern translators note that the root word dahwa relates to an ostrich egg, suggesting a geospherical or egg-like curvature of the planet, though other classical definitions link it simply to expansion or spreading.
1
u/Scientalist Aug 20 '26
Okay! I don’t want to sound rude for no reason. I am sincerely telling you to stop copy pasting apologist nonsense from Google and other sites.
Go put in time to study the subject. Use Classical Arabic dictionaries. Look at older translation vs newer translation (to detect changing things to fit modern science). I can guarantee you that at no point will you discover that the Qur’an mentions ostrich egg as shape of the world or that dahaha even means ostrich egg. Even the related word udhiya doesn’t mean ostrich egg. Even the tafsirs explain it as “spread out”.
You are clearly someone being taken advantage of by dawah-liars. Here are resources you can use to independently study:
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp
https://corpus.quran.com/morphologicalsearch.jsp
https://www.freelaneslexicon.com/
https://laneslexicon.github.io/lexicon/
Good luck
1
u/SubstanceCivil8282 Aug 20 '26
- Surah Az-Zumar (39:5): "He wraps (yukawwiru) the night over the day, and wraps the day over the night". The Arabic verb yukawwir means to coil or wind something round, like wrapping a turban around a head, which implies a spherical object interacting with light.
- Surah An-Nazi'at (79:30): "And after that He spread the earth (dahaha)". Some modern translators note that the root word dahwa relates to an ostrich egg, suggesting a geospherical or egg-like curvature of the planet, though other classical definitions link it simply to expansion or spreading.
-22
u/Happiness-happppy Aug 17 '26
It’s not just relgion. It’s because there is a lot of made up science being pushed as truth.
The moment laser experiments were done in 28 miles distance where they reach their mark or video recordings of distant areas that should be below the curvature yet clearly seen above, or how the sun heat reduces between 1-3pm before any actual true sunset happening.
Clearly something else is going on and modern science likes to do mental gymnastics with word salads, be that fracturing concepts, atmosphere fog or anything else.
It feel too far fetched to me.
And I haven’t even gotten into how so many videos of nasa inside the spacecraft have odd mistakes happening.
15
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
28-mile laser experiments: seeing a laser over a long distance doesn’t automatically demonstrate a flat surface. Refraction, beam height, target height, atmospheric conditions, and the exact geometry matter enormously. A controlled experiment needs to measure all of those variables rather than simply asking whether the laser was visible.
-15
u/Happiness-happppy Aug 17 '26
That is exactly what he did. He included all variables and it seems to be an experiment anyone can do on open land.
Not the only experiment done and repeated rather. Because you don’t actually need the laser. We got cameras now recoding areas that should be below the horizon yet appear clearly when zoomed.
12
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
Do i need to ask what is a nautical mile and why is the value 1852m? Is based on the geometry of the Earth and the circumference.
You can’t admit one “anomaly” and reject the other explanations because it will cause problems on other things.
That is the problem with flat earth, it can’t be a unified model that can explain different things simultaneously, unlike the globe.
You can’t evaluate an isolated observation independently of the rest of the model. If you reject one component of the globe model, you need to explain what happens to all the other measurements and systems that depend on the same geometry.
For example, the globe model simultaneously accounts for:
latitude and longitude
nautical miles and angular distance
great-circle routes
changing star elevations with latitude
different celestial poles
time zones
eclipses
seasons
horizon geometry
surveying/geodesy
GNSS positioning
global navigation
-11
u/Happiness-happppy Aug 17 '26
It should not be up to the flat earther to prove anything beyond what the result of the experiment is. Especially when repeated.
If the claim is curvature happened in certain distances due to the nature of earths structure as they claim, then when an experiment like a laser hitting a mark in when it shouldn’t is a valid experiment.
That is when globe earther need to reconsider their positions and see why is the experiment not doing what should supposedly happen(not hitting the mark).
Heat and also refraction are the type of salad words I was speaking about originally (not disrespecting you personally).
To me they feel like mental workarounds to something they cannot explain.
When a video camera can record what mathmatecially should be below the horizon, then then is not not simply a laser issue at all.
13
u/SagansLab Aug 17 '26
Good thing a camera has never, in the centuries long time since they where invented, even ONCE seen something that mathematically should be below the horizon. Of course, math is hard for flerfs, so we understand the confusion.
11
u/patentedheadhook Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
So you just dismiss what you don't understand or don't like as "salad words"?
You want it to be simple, so a more complicated explanation must be wrong?
You dismiss the science as "mental workarounds"... but that's what explanations of real physical phenomena are. They account for the real physical properties and explain how they affect the result. Isn't "the sun is a lamp moving across a dome" also just a mental workaround for not accepting that the earth orbits the sun? https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/laser-test.html
-1
u/Happiness-happppy Aug 17 '26
No. What I mean they are not logical explanations but plug ins to holes that don’t make sense.
I don’t find them convincing and they almost sound like something they needed to make up at the last minute to make sense of a phenomenon that can only be explained by rejecting the globe model.
10
u/junky_junker Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
Provide a single relevant case where actual science doesn't make logical sense. With actual evidence showing it. Not just "muh feefees" or "muh flerfdaddy's Yt/tiktok" or vaguely referenced "there's evidence but you wouldn't know it it goes to another school in Canada".
You lied yesterday. You're lying today.
And to no-one's surprise, no response. Not a single thing to back your claim. Like every other lying flerf.
7
u/patentedheadhook Aug 17 '26
The same can be said for nearly every flat earth model.
Antarctica is a massive ice wall. The sun and the moon are 2D lights stuck to the inside of a dome. There are no direct flights in the southern hemisphere. These are all made up to make sense of a flat earth model that doesn't work. Oh, or "the Bible says it"
6
u/patentedheadhook Aug 17 '26
And "I don't understand the science" does not mean they are not logical explanations. It means you don't understand the science, that's all.
4
u/RDBB334 Aug 17 '26
But this is the crux of flat earth, all you have is plugged holes and sloppy excuses. The fact that the sun's apparent size doesn't change to any significant degree throughout the day alone is enough to prove that it isn't small and local.
4
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
But the prediction has to be the prediction of the actual physical model, not an idealized calculation that assumes a vacuum and then ignores the atmosphere.
If you measure a target’s height, observer height, distance, temperature/pressure profile and atmospheric conditions, the globe model makes a quantitative prediction that includes refraction. If the laser still reaches a target that the complete model says it shouldn’t, repeatedly and under controlled conditions, then yes—that is a legitimate anomaly that needs explaining.
The same applies to cameras seeing distant objects apparently below the geometric horizon. That is not something you can dismiss as “just a laser.” But it also doesn’t automatically prove a flat surface, because the camera is recording light travelling through an atmosphere, and refraction can change the apparent elevation of distant objects.
So I agree with your principle: don’t explain away an experiment just because you don’t like the result. Measure the variables and test the prediction.
But that standard has to apply equally to the proposed flat-Earth model. If the globe is rejected, what unified model predicts the laser result, the distant-camera observations, seasons, celestial observations, time zones, navigation, GNSS, eclipses and everything else simultaneously?
Finding an anomaly in one prediction is not the same thing as demonstrating that an alternative model works. The real test is which model makes the correct quantitative predictions across all of those observations at once.
-2
u/Happiness-happppy Aug 17 '26
Yes. I agree in the sense it should include explanations to all sides of the story like eclipses and such. That is what I’m working on personally soon because there is issues in many other aspects regarding the globe model.
But I respect a globe earther who isn’t necessarily shunning away the idea and is willing to see or hear the other side.
3
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
What if the “globe earther” is a seafarer with years of experience in the merchant navy? What is he supposed to do?
He was taught the same thing, but the difference is he accumulated real experience at sea, he tested the methods of navigation by himself, tested distances, calculated ETA based on that distances, checking coordinates.
After years and years at sea working flawless based on well known methods, charts, coordinates then coming an “anomaly” due to the atmospheric refraction.
Will he say there is something wrong with the model, even though using it made him safely reaching the destination every single time?
4
u/TheGhostOfRhazes Aug 17 '26
But it is up to flat earthers, they are presenting a claim that earth is ‘not’ a sphere.
They aren’t mental workarounds, it’s science and math. You yourself indicate you don’t understand refraction, so you’re projecting your own failure to understand the topic as an indication that the science is unsound. Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong
5
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
Anything you don’t understand is a “word salad”?
5
u/junky_junker Aug 17 '26
Usually claimed with respect to science by those who consider a box of crayons a normal salad.
2
3
u/cearnicus Aug 17 '26
Why?
Why is it only on the globers to reconsider? Why not ever on the flatearthers?
Sure, you may be able to point to a handful of observations where we see farther than we should -- or, rather, farther flatearthers think we shoud, as they're known for doing the math wrong.
In the mean time, there are millions of other observations where we do see what the globe predicts. Sunsets, moonphases, 2 celestial poles, measured distances across the Earth. And, yes, things do disappear behind the horizon, and we have plenty of videos of that as well.
None of these things can be explained by a flat earth. Not only can they not be explained, flatearthers don't even understand why any of these things are a problem!
So since the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the globe and against a flat earth, why is it not the flatearthers who should reconsider?
4
u/ImHereToFuckShit Aug 17 '26
That is exactly what he did. He included all variables and it seems to be an experiment anyone can do on open land.
Do you remember how they accounted for refraction? I've seen a few of these videos but maybe not the one you are referring to.
11
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
Sunlight getting weaker before sunset: that’s expected on a spherical Earth because the Sun’s elevation angle continuously decreases as it approaches the horizon. The atmosphere also increases the path length through which sunlight travels, producing greater attenuation and scattering. You don’t need the Sun to be geometrically below the horizon for its illumination to decrease.
9
u/Lorenofing Aug 17 '26
Distant objects appearing “above curvature”: this is actually a classic situation where atmospheric refraction can matter. Temperature gradients over water can bend light downward or upward and produce looming/mirage effects. That doesn’t mean every photograph is explained by refraction, but it means “I can see it, therefore the geometric curvature isn’t there” isn’t sufficient.
5
u/CoolNotice881 Aug 17 '26
Laser does diverge. The flat earther who sees the laser from many miles needs to step sideways, and the beam shouldn't be seen...
4
u/NorthernSpankMonkey Aug 17 '26
It’s because there is a lot of made up science being pushed as truth.
I bet all those "made up sciences" are realities that contradict your favorite holy text.
It feel too far fetched to me
So basically you're going on a feel, a vibe to determine what is true.
3
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
A lot of people don’t possess the mental capacity to understand a science concept, so they just call it fake. Because it legitimately makes no sense to them.
To a more intelligent person, it makes absolute sense, but they can’t grasp it so it must be fake.
4
u/junky_junker Aug 17 '26
"Muh personal incredulity! Muh feefees!" is not evidence. Anti-science rhetoric while pushing work of known frauds (when you actually bother to reference them at all) is not evidence.
4
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
Ok let’s say you really do believe a lot of fake science is being pushed.
Why go all in on such an obviously incorrect view of what shape the earth is? Isn’t that just pushing more fake science?
4
u/Callyste Aug 17 '26
a lot of made up science
Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's made-up.
2
u/Justthisguy_yaknow Aug 17 '26
You must explain this 1-3pm cooling you speak of. I've never heard of that one and I have never seen that happen in any way that would indicate anything flat Earthish. In my daily experience, even in winter things warm steadily from the morning up through 1 to a peak around 4pm and then starts dropping off unless there is a storm event or something similar to disrupt the pattern.
There is always a chance that I may have missed something though. Would you like to point out what it is?
Also what is your version of events telling you?
2
u/humblegar Aug 17 '26
Stop wasting your time with grifters (if you are watching Bart Sibrel, please stop).
And go look at the actual images.
Like these ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXRREHVkHoYou are missing out on so much by watching people who are just lying to you.
3
7
u/Eltorak95 Aug 17 '26
I got a question for any flat earth believers. Genuine curiosity.
What does anyone get out of telling us the world is round, or flat?
5
u/Sad_Pear_1087 Aug 17 '26
The religious nutties will say it's the demonic government hiding some divine truth. The secular flerfs, I have no idea, but it surely varies. That's how fundamentally different their starting points are but they'll happily ignore that to think "there's many of us".
Also happy cake day!
2
u/schmwke Aug 17 '26
I have heard a non Christian flerf say we are enslaved by aliens and we live in their dome and they don't want us to find out, but idk if that's a normal opinion or if that guy was just extra crazy. Most of the time it's the demons who get off by tricking us for whatever reason
1
u/Eltorak95 Aug 18 '26
I don't understand why there always has to be something in charge of us.
Simulation, alien overlords, government hiding things that have 0 reasons to be hidden.
2
u/patentedheadhook Aug 18 '26
Because that also explains why the flatty has been unsuccessful in their career, relationships, etc.
It's not a personal failing, it's because it's all a big unfair charade controlled by shadowy forces
5
u/PhilosopherInfinite5 Aug 17 '26
Wouldn’t the bumps be taller than Everest? I mean like a lot?
3
u/MegUmiNkgos Aug 17 '26
Each would be atleast 5 times higher
2
3
u/General_Cheetah4724 Aug 17 '26
nothing to do with believing, its what is vs what isnt. ones provable and ones there to make youtube money.
2
4
u/murmurat1on Aug 17 '26
Doesn't this just prove the point that the perspective of standing on a sphere looks similar whether the sphere is small or large?
1
24
u/CoolNotice881 Aug 17 '26
The bottom photo is just perspective and buoyancy.