[qu3st]

Hello, this flat earth theory is both fascinating and heating up, so I can't help but wonder...so what if the earth is flat? 

I'm not seeing how that changes much. So, if the world is flat means that someone/something created it...well, we already have creation theories (big bang, God, ETs, etc). Also, there's many ancient texts (Bhagavad Gita, for example), as well as saints/sages, that say the world is an illusion or not real.

I've seen compelling models of flat earth...is the implication that the solar system is not real, too? That there's not really stars, planets, moon, space itself? If there is no space, then what is suspected to surround outside of flat earth?

Then there's the theory that flat earth doesn't move at all...so what does that imply? Say our planet really is stationary...what is the significance of that?

Regarding the moon...let's say we have been to the moon, then, those earth pics from the moon support flat earth imo because it looks like a half globe. Why does the earth being flat mean we haven't been to the moon as a people?

Hopefully I've not offended anyone with my q's...I really want to know...esp. if this is true! Cuz' I definitely think "globists" want to give the idea that "flat earthers" think of the world as a flat piece of paper...at least that was my perception.

[tellytubby]

If I were to ask my local vicar why he believes in God, he would probably say because God is his interpretation of what we call creation. If I were to ask him for evidence of his belief of the existence of God then he might say look around you. The world that exists and everything that it supports, including me and him is evidence of his belief.  Does that make any difference to me or what I believe?  of course it doesn't. You can go on forever asking about how or even why creation happens.  If God created the Earth then what or who created God?... etc etc.
What is the difference between proof, evidence and belief?  At what point do we say we have 'proved' something through evidence. Surely that is down to how that evidence is interpreted and that in turn can be influenced at the personal level by what we want to believe.
You could also ask if being 'taught' something is often the result of simply being told something. A student might say 'It must be true because that is what my teacher told me'. Of course teachers are not in the business of knowingly misleading or lying to their students just so they develop the same point of view on something. The teacher should of course encourage their student to carry out their own independent research on the subject. Teachers are working within the framework of a defined syllabus of course and so they only have time or the responsibility of ensuring that the student is equipped with whatever knowledge will be required of them during the exam.

In terms of developing theories you can start off with a pre-assertion that is based perhaps simply on belief.  The vicar is a good example. You then interpret all the evidence around you so that it fits in with that belief. Breaking away if necessary from conventional or mainstream lines of thought however compelling they might seem to be

Or you can start off with a completely clean drawing board and then build a theory based on what you observe. You might identify a number of difference possible theories and from those you place them on order of best compatibility with everything that you observe and experience. There may well be overlaps between the two approaches here. For example the Earth does look flat when viewed from the conventional viewpoint that most of us have of it.
If and when those who stand firm with their pre-asserted belief encounter evidence from 'the other side' that suggests their belief is wrong then it becomes necessary for them to shout 'fake, hoax, conspiracy' or whatever. That is easy to do of course.  Where pre-asserted believers come up trumps often is demonstrating how difficult it actually can be to really 'prove' something one way or the other.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

People are interested in finding out the truth, that's what. The earth being flat would make practically 0 difference to anyone's life, but this is the kind of thing that really interests some people.

[tellytubby]

I would beg to disagree about a flat Earth making no difference to anyone's life. If the Earth were not the shape that it is (oblate spheroid), then it could not exist in the form that it does or in the way that it does. That would certainly have a very significant effect on everyone's life.

Some people only see the 'truth' as being anything that appears to support their particular point of view. I guess it comes down to how we choose to interpret things around us.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

I would beg to disagree about a flat Earth making no difference to anyone's life. If the Earth were not the shape that it is (oblate spheroid), then it could not exist in the form that it does or in the way that it does. That would certainly have a very significant effect on everyone's life.

Some people only see the 'truth' as being anything that appears to support their particular point of view. I guess it comes down to how we choose to interpret things around us.

I meant that if you found out today that you'd been living on a flat plane this whole time instead of a globe, your life wouldn't change significantly. I'm not talking about some bizzare scenario where the whole world morphs from a sphere into a flat plane.

[tellytubby]

Me neither.  What I meant is that if the Earth really is flat then we would certainly know about it by now. It would have been figured out a long time ago. If indeed a flat surface in space is capable of evolving life. Which I am not sure it could. Atmospheric retention for starters would be a distinct problem.

The only way a sphere can 'morph' into a flat plane is if something caused it to rotate a lot faster. We know from observing the other planets that increased rotation also creates a polar flattening effect. Jupiter shows the greatest degree of flattening between the poles and not surprisingly it is also the fastest rotating planet.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

Me neither.  What I meant is that if the Earth really is flat then we would certainly know about it by now. It would have been figured out a long time ago. If indeed a flat surface in space is capable of evolving life. Which I am not sure it could. Atmospheric retention for starters would be a distinct problem.

The only way a sphere can 'morph' into a flat plane is if something caused it to rotate a lot faster. We know from observing the other planets that increased rotation also creates a polar flattening effect. Jupiter shows the greatest degree of flattening between the poles and not surprisingly it is also the fastest rotating planet.

Maybe all the conspiracy theorists are right, and everything you've been told is a lie. No matter how unlikely you think it is, it's impossible to rule out.

[Bikini Polaris]

The only way a sphere can 'morph' into a flat plane is if something caused it to rotate a lot faster. We know from observing the other planets that increased rotation also creates a polar flattening effect. Jupiter shows the greatest degree of flattening between the poles and not surprisingly it is also the fastest rotating planet.

Let's not forget explainations that look alike, li,e how FEs predict eclipses (using RE computations) or tides. Best example, with the pac-man effect you could create a flat earth theory which is undistinguishable from RE.

[ICanScienceThat]

The shape of the Earth is important to me for 2 reasons:
1) As a test of our ability to correctly apply critical thinking.
2) Because of the implications of the global conspiracy this would indicate should it turn out to be flat.

1) Each of us should individually consider what we believe to be true and what thinking process got us there. Then when the truth is determined, we must each re-evaluate whether our thought processes had failed us or not. If we find that we've made a significant error in critical thinking, that would be a call to re-evaluate other things we believe as well.

This is something I've tried to impress upon others. Critical thinking is an important skill, and you've got to test yourself to be sure you're doing it well. The idea of a flat Earth is a fantastic way to do this. Some folks here take an "agnostic" view of the shape of the Earth, and I challenge those individuals to test their critical thinking skills as well. I submit that the answer is extremely clear, and the correct application of critical thinking should show you that answer. If you've come away with any answer other than that (including "there's no way to know"), then you need to seriously re-evaluate the process that brought you to that conclusion.

2) Some folks want to say that, "only a few people at the top know the truth," but that doesn't hold up if you apply that same level of critical thinking to the process. The number of people that must be "in on it" for the Earth to be flat is utterly staggering. And make no mistake, you'd need to put ME into that category. I'd pretty much need to be "in on it." I can't give you any reason to believe me when I say I am not in on anything of the sort, but I can assure you, my mind would have to be seriously broken if I were somehow involved in a global conspiracy and not aware of it myself.

[proponent]

Hello, this flat earth theory is both fascinating and heating up, so I can't help but wonder...so what if the earth is flat? 

I'm not seeing how that changes much. So, if the world is flat means that someone/something created it...well, we already have creation theories (big bang, God, ETs, etc). Also, there's many ancient texts (Bhagavad Gita, for example), as well as saints/sages, that say the world is an illusion or not real.

I've seen compelling models of flat earth...is the implication that the solar system is not real, too? That there's not really stars, planets, moon, space itself? If there is no space, then what is suspected to surround outside of flat earth?

Then there's the theory that flat earth doesn't move at all...so what does that imply? Say our planet really is stationary...what is the significance of that?

Regarding the moon...let's say we have been to the moon, then, those earth pics from the moon support flat earth imo because it looks like a half globe. Why does the earth being flat mean we haven't been to the moon as a people?

Hopefully I've not offended anyone with my q's...I really want to know...esp. if this is true! Cuz' I definitely think "globists" want to give the idea that "flat earthers" think of the world as a flat piece of paper...at least that was my perception.

It's up to you.It's up to you.try hard!