<p>I realize this queston might be closed, and perhaps this should've been a comment, but it got too long:</p>
<p>I was in a radio show last spring with a flat-earther. I really tried to understand him, rather than just ridicule him. We went to the beach with his 87x magnifying camera, to watch the coastline 19 km away. If my model of the geometry of Earth were right, we would be able to see the buildings on the other side of the belt, but not the shore. If his model were correct, I <em>thought</em> we would be able to see the shore, but it turns out they have an ad hoc explanation that has to do with the vanishing point on a flat Earth lying <em>below</em> the ground, thus making sufficiently distant objects disappear.</p>
<p>So, apparently this is their explanation.</p>
<p>When after five minutes I still didn't understand this, he told me it was no wonder that I didn't understand; it took him two  years to understand.</p>
<p>Well, big surprise, we couldn't see the shore. We could in fact see a bit more of the buildings than we should be able to if there were no atmosphere. I assigned this to refraction (which can actually move the horizon several tens of kilometers away, or even ~100 km over water in the springtime when the air is getting warm but the water is still cold), but since he didn't believe in refraction, that didn't convince him.</p>
<p>We then talked a bit about what mechanism might produce a flat Earth. The conversation sort of ended when I realized he didn't believe in gravity either…</p>
<h3>Is a flat Earth scientifically justifiable today?</h3>
<p>The question title has now been edited to a more easily answerable one. The answer is — unsurprisingly to most people on this site, I suppose — a big, resounding &quot;<strong>NO</strong>&quot;! The flat Earth theory is <em>not</em> a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. It's not even a hypothesis. You could call it a model, and in many cases, it's a fine model, namely on scales much smaller than the horizon distance. You may assume a flat Earth if you want to calculate the area of the parking lot. This is analogous to Newtonian dynamics being a fine model for small velocities and gravitational fields. It works fine if you want to calculate the force of an apple falling on Newton's head. But everybody knows it become less exact, the larger and faster the apple.</p>
<p>I suspect that the use of the word &quot;theory&quot; in everyday language influences how people think about science. &quot;It's just a theory&quot;, they say, without realizing the enormous amount of work, experiments, verifications, and falsifications that go into building a scientific theory.</p>
<p>Flat-Earthers in general don't realize, I think, that in science you can't just assume that something works in another way, without this assumption having severe consequences for many other theories.</p>
<h3>Why not?</h3>
<p>The list of reasons that a flat Earth is incompatible with a range of well-established theories is long. Here's a subset:</p>
<ul>
<li>Gravity
<ul>
<li>Gravity explains why a large mass becomes round. FE'ers have no explanation of why it could be flat.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Electromagnetism
<ul>
<li>The Sun and Moon are circulating 5000 km over Earth, held up by electromagnetic forces. This is completely impossible within the frames of the accepted theory of electromagnetism, but they don't propose a new theory of EM.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Astronomical distances
<ul>
<li>Standard trigonometry reveals that in their model, the Moon would look different from different places of Earth. It does, but much, much less than if it were 5000 km away (because it is in fact 400,000 km away)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Meteorology
<ul>
<li>The guy I talked to had no explanation for why cyclones rotate clockwise and counter-clockwise in the Southern and Northen hemispheres, respectively. The Flat Earth Society <a href="https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect" rel="noreferrer">explains</a> this by &quot;<em>The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line</em>&quot;. I… I don't know what to say about this…</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Constellations
<ul>
<li>The Southern Cross can be seen from Australia and South America. I'm in Oslo at the moment, which according to their world map is right in the middle between Australia and South America, yet I can't see the Southern Cross.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Satellites
<ul>
<li>FE'ers generally don't believe in Moon landings and space stations, but many satellites can be seen even with a relatively small telescope.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The disappearance of ships and other objects below the horizon.
<ul>
<li>Simple trigonometry shows that on a flat Earth, you should be able to see as far as the airmass allows you. On a round Earth, this is complicated by refraction, enabling us to see farther than if there were no atmosphere. But still, you can easily see how the Sun or Moon sets or rises partly below the horizon.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Lots of other inconsistencies
<ul>
<li>Stellar parallaxes.</li>
<li>The different weight of the same object at equator and the poles.</li>
<li>Eclipses (in particular the times at which they occur).</li>
<li>The movement of Jupiter's moons (which can be seen with a regular binocular).</li>
<li>Tides.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The problem is that there is no way to discuss these things with FE'ers. If you give an argument that they can't disprove, they will either claim that you're just wrong, or that &quot;you think so because that's how you were schooled&quot;, or that you're a part of the conspiracy.</p>
<p>In particular the last point is important. Since the FE model, were it right, would imply that most of all physics would be wrong, that means that either</p>
<ol>
<li><p>all physicists in the world are stupid, which makes it pretty amazing that we've made planes fly, computers work, bridges hold up traffic, compasses show us the way, as well as predicted stuff like Venus transits and the weather tomorrow. Or</p>
</li>
<li><p>all physicists are a part of a conspiracy, which would be equally amazing how none of the millions of physicists through history has confessed. Where's my bribe?!</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h3>Why am I not just ignoring them?</h3>
<p>You may say that by writing this, I am just feeding the trolls, and giving people the impression that flat-Earthers are a problem for science. But in my opinion, the attitude that they hold toward science is much larger than just a few crackpots claiming what is obviously false. It's a symptom of something sad in our society, namely that &quot;science is just <em>one</em> opinion, and <em>my</em> opinion is just a valid&quot;.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that scientists can tend to be cocky and should try to be more open to understanding why people don't believe us. But what makes a few people believe in a flat Earth is the same thing that
makes people deny that human activities affect the climate,
or makes them believe that vaccines are evil,
and makes some politicians get away with using a term like &quot;alternative facts&quot;.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T23:40:24.443Z
Hmm fair enough, they do exist. However I think their number gets misrepresented on astronomical websites, wanting to make us believe that there is some actual scientific side-stream besides the main-stream. Probably a similar thing happens with Intelligent Designers, one would talk about them more if one would research biology.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T00:46:50.993Z
"he didn't believe in refraction" / "he didn't believe in gravity either" - so, literally no true dialog is possible then.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T01:06:57.543Z
I still think he is  a troll
Osias Jota
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T01:18:00.960Z
@FlorinAndrei I came too late to the same conclusion. What doesn't fit their theory… wait, it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis, but I accept "model"… what doesn't fit their model, is either wrong, or a conspiracy, or they Russell's teapot their way out of it.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T01:19:08.167Z
And no, @OsiasJota, unfortunately not. He was most definitely not a troll.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T01:20:46.330Z
But as @AtmosphericPrisonEscape says, they might be fewer than what media wants to make us believe. I know of many people that follow e.g. their Facebook pages just for laughs.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T19:53:01.533Z
Never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I don't remember where I heard that, but I love it.
BillDOe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T22:38:35.497Z
The savvy FE'er would basically use Bell's Theorem: if we drop the assumption that our instruments and senses give reliable information about the truth of the world, then we can basically explain anything in any way.  Reality can just be messing with us 24/7.  They can then assert that the only reliable source of truth is the Bible, or Sean Hannity, or that dog down the street; whatever. Basically, all scientific evidence can point to the Earth not being flat, but this is wrong/ignorable because science is predicated upon trusting the lies that reality intrinsically feeds us.
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-09T10:29:20.870Z
@barrycarter I didn't go into detail on how to "prove" these points wrong, because I'm unsure whether this answer belongs here at all, but I don't agree that it's very hard. The only reasons that the FE explanations are sometimes difficult to prove wrong is that they're sometimes not even wrong — they just don't make sense. Or they're stated in a deliberately convoluted way, to make people shut up.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-09T10:30:03.613Z
@zibadawatimmy Exactly! That's why arguing with FE'ers is pointless.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T23:21:18.453Z
2018-03-09T17:41:17.060Z
2020-06-17T09:47:40.653Z
pela
<p>With binoculars or telescopes you'd be able to see to other countries if the earth were flat. And looking out at the ocean we can see where the earth curves and things like the top of ships, not the whole ship. Unless those who think the earth is flat believe they are looking at the end of the world when looking out at the ocean? How do they arrive at this position?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T22:39:59.200Z
I don't know which Stack Exchange site would accept a question along the lines of "why do people believe in flat earth" (Skeptics, maybe?) but I don't think it belongs here.
Cody
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T22:51:51.257Z
The answer is probably: People don't, it's internet trolls trolling internet trolls, because at this stage internet trolling is reaching its own singularity.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T23:03:37.890Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape Unfortunately, no
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T09:04:35.803Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape You are only trolling us <!-- ;-) -->
peterh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-08T14:05:06.013Z
Hey, the Earth is flat if you're in 4-space!
Carl Witthoft
<earth>
Is the flat earth cosmology scientifically justifiable today?
Flat Earth
# Is the flat earth cosmology scientifically justifiable today?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-07)

With binoculars or telescopes you'd be able to see to other countries if the username_0 were username_0. And looking out at the ocean we can see where the username_0 curves and things like the top of ships, not the whole ship. Unless those who think the username_0 is username_0 believe they are looking at the end of the world when looking out at the ocean? How do they arrive at this position?

**Tags:** earth

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't know which Stack Exchange site would accept a question along the lines of "why do people believe in username_0 username_0" (Skeptics, maybe?) but I don't think it belongs here.  
> **username_2**: The answer is probably: People don't, it's internet trolls trolling internet trolls, because at this stage internet trolling is reaching its own singularity.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 Unfortunately, no  
> **username_4**: @username_2 You are only trolling us <!-- ;-) -->  
> **username_5**: Hey, the username_0 is username_0 if you're in 4-space!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-03-07. Score: 19

I realize this queston might be closed, and perhaps this should've been a comment, but it got too long:

I was in a radio show last spring with a username_0-earther. I really tried to understand him, rather than just ridicule him. We went to the beach with his 87x magnifying camera, to watch the coastline 19 km away. If my model of the geometry of username_0 were right, we would be able to see the buildings on the other side of the belt, but not the shore. If his model were correct, I *thought* we would be able to see the shore, but it turns out they have an ad hoc explanation that has to do with the vanishing point on a username_0 username_0 lying *below* the ground, thus making sufficiently distant objects disappear.

So, apparently this is their explanation.

When after five minutes I still didn't understand this, he told me it was no wonder that I didn't understand; it took him two years to understand.

Well, big surprise, we couldn't see the shore. We could in fact see a bit more of the buildings than we should be able to if there were no atmosphere. I assigned this to refraction (which can actually move the horizon several tens of kilometers away, or even ~100 km over water in the springtime when the air is getting warm but the water is still cold), but since he didn't believe in refraction, that didn't convince him.

We then talked a bit about what mechanism might produce a username_0 username_0. The conversation sort of ended when I realized he didn't believe in gravity either…

### Is a username_0 username_0 scientifically justifiable today?

The question title has now been edited to a more easily answerable one. The answer is — unsurprisingly to most people on this site, I suppose — a big, resounding "**NO**"! The username_0 username_0 theory is *not* a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. It's not even a hypothesis. You could call it a model, and in many cases, it's a fine model, namely on scales much smaller than the horizon distance. You may assume a username_0 username_0 if you want to calculate the area of the parking lot. This is analogous to Newtonian dynamics being a fine model for small velocities and gravitational fields. It works fine if you want to calculate the force of an apple falling on Newton's head. But everybody knows it become less exact, the larger and faster the apple.

I suspect that the use of the word "theory" in everyday language influences how people think about science. "It's just a theory", they say, without realizing the enormous amount of work, experiments, verifications, and falsifications that go into building a scientific theory.

username_0-Earthers in general don't realize, I think, that in science you can't just assume that something works in another way, without this assumption having severe consequences for many other theories.

### Why not?

The list of reasons that a username_0 username_0 is incompatible with a range of well-established theories is long. Here's a subset:

* Gravity
  + Gravity explains why a large mass becomes round. FE'ers have no explanation of why it could be username_0.
* Electromagnetism
  + The Sun and Moon are circulating 5000 km over username_0, held up by electromagnetic forces. This is completely impossible within the frames of the accepted theory of electromagnetism, but they don't propose a new theory of EM.
* Astronomical distances
  + Standard trigonometry reveals that in their model, the Moon would look different from different places of username_0. It does, but much, much less than if it were 5000 km away (because it is in fact 400,000 km away)
* Meteorology
  + The guy I talked to had no explanation for why cyclones rotate clockwise and counter-clockwise in the Southern and Northen hemispheres, respectively. The username_0 username_0 Society [explains](https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect) this by "*The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line*". I… I don't know what to say about this…
* Constellations
  + The Southern Cross can be seen from Australia and South America. I'm in Oslo at the moment, which according to their world map is right in the middle between Australia and South America, yet I can't see the Southern Cross.
* Satellites
  + FE'ers generally don't believe in Moon landings and space stations, but many satellites can be seen even with a relatively small telescope.
* The disappearance of ships and other objects below the horizon.
  + Simple trigonometry shows that on a username_0 username_0, you should be able to see as far as the airmass allows you. On a round username_0, this is complicated by refraction, enabling us to see farther than if there were no atmosphere. But still, you can easily see how the Sun or Moon sets or rises partly below the horizon.
* Lots of other inconsistencies
  + Stellar parallaxes.
  + The different weight of the same object at equator and the poles.
  + Eclipses (in particular the times at which they occur).
  + The movement of Jupiter's moons (which can be seen with a regular binocular).
  + Tides.

The problem is that there is no way to discuss these things with FE'ers. If you give an argument that they can't disprove, they will either claim that you're just wrong, or that "you think so because that's how you were schooled", or that you're a part of the conspiracy.

In particular the last point is important. Since the FE model, were it right, would imply that most of all physics would be wrong, that means that either

1. all physicists in the world are stupid, which makes it pretty amazing that we've made planes fly, computers work, bridges hold up traffic, compasses show us the way, as well as predicted stuff like Venus transits and the weather tomorrow. Or
2. all physicists are a part of a conspiracy, which would be equally amazing how none of the millions of physicists through history has confessed. Where's my bribe?!

### Why am I not just ignoring them?

You may say that by writing this, I am just feeding the trolls, and giving people the impression that username_0-Earthers are a problem for science. But in my opinion, the attitude that they hold toward science is much larger than just a few crackpots claiming what is obviously false. It's a symptom of something sad in our society, namely that "science is just *one* opinion, and *my* opinion is just a valid".

I acknowledge that scientists can tend to be cocky and should try to be more open to understanding why people don't believe us. But what makes a few people believe in a username_0 username_0 is the same thing that
makes people deny that human activities affect the climate,
or makes them believe that vaccines are evil,
and makes some politicians get away with using a term like "alternative facts".

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Hmm fair enough, they do exist. However I think their number gets misrepresented on astronomical websites, wanting to make us believe that there is some actual scientific side-stream besides the main-stream. Probably a similar thing happens with Intelligent Designers, one would talk about them more if one would research biology.  
> **username_6**: "he didn't believe in refraction" / "he didn't believe in gravity either" - so, literally no true dialog is possible then.  
> **username_7**: I still think he is  a troll  
> **username_3**: @username_6 I came too late to the same conclusion. What doesn't fit their theory… wait, it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis, but I accept "model"… what doesn't fit their model, is either wrong, or a conspiracy, or they Russell's teapot their way out of it.  
> **username_3**: And no, @username_7, unfortunately not. He was most definitely not a troll.  
> **username_3**: But as @username_2 says, they might be fewer than what media wants to make us believe. I know of many people that follow e.g. their Facebook pages just for laughs.  
> **username_8**: Never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I don't remember where I heard that, but I love it.  
> **username_9**: The savvy FE'er would basically use Bell's Theorem: if we drop the assumption that our instruments and senses give reliable information about the truth of the world, then we can basically explain anything in any way.  Reality can just be messing with us 24/7.  They can then assert that the only reliable source of truth is the Bible, or Sean Hannity, or that dog down the street; whatever. Basically, all scientific evidence can point to the username_0 not being username_0, but this is wrong/ignorable because science is predicated upon trusting the lies that reality intrinsically feeds us.  
> **username_3**: @barrycarter I didn't go into detail on how to "prove" these points wrong, because I'm unsure whether this answer belongs here at all, but I don't agree that it's very hard. The only reasons that the FE explanations are sometimes difficult to prove wrong is that they're sometimes not even wrong — they just don't make sense. Or they're stated in a deliberately convoluted way, to make people shut up.  
> **username_3**: @username_9 Exactly! That's why arguing with FE'ers is pointless.  

---

