#flat earth debunked

[dayofaestheticorsubculture]

Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society is a group that promotes the belief that the Earth is flat, contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus and empirical evidence supporting the Earth’s oblate spheroid shape. The society is best understood as part of a broader historical and sociological phenomenon involving conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and alternative belief systems. While the notion of a flat Earth is generally viewed as a long-debunked idea, the modern Flat Earth Society represents a small but persistent community that has adapted ancient cosmological beliefs into modern conspiracy-based frameworks. It is important to analyze this group through lenses of history, psychology, epistemology, and science communication.

Belief in a flat Earth predates modern scientific understanding and is found in many ancient cultures. Early Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and early Greek civilizations conceptualized the world as a flat disc or plane, typically surrounded by water. In ancient Norse mythology, the Earth (Midgard) was portrayed as a flat realm surrounded by a great ocean, while early Hindu cosmology described a flat Earth resting on the back of elephants and a turtle.

However, by the time of Classical Antiquity, the spherical nature of the Earth had been proposed and increasingly accepted among scholars. Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras (6th century BCE), Parmenides, and Plato speculated about Earth’s shape, while Aristotle (4th century BCE) provided observational arguments for a spherical Earth, such as the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during lunar eclipses. The idea was empirically reinforced by the work of Eratosthenes (3rd century BCE), who accurately estimated Earth's circumference using shadows and geometry.

The myth that medieval Europeans broadly believed in a flat Earth has been thoroughly debunked by historians. By the early Middle Ages, educated European scholars largely accepted the Earth’s sphericity. This misconception was perpetuated in the 19th century as part of a narrative of scientific progress over superstition. Nevertheless, isolated instances of flat Earth belief persisted throughout history, often grounded in literal interpretations of religious texts.

The modern Flat Earth movement began in the 19th century with Samuel Rowbotham, an English writer and religious fundamentalist. Under the pseudonym "Parallax," Rowbotham published Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe in 1865. His model described the Earth as a flat disc centered at the North Pole with a wall of ice (Antarctica) around the rim. Rowbotham’s approach, dubbed "Zeteticism," emphasized observation and common-sense empiricism over theoretical science. His experiments, such as the Bedford Level experiment, were claimed to support a flat Earth but were methodologically flawed and misinterpreted.

Rowbotham’s ideas gave rise to the Universal Zetetic Society in the late 19th century, spearheaded by followers like Lady Elizabeth Blount. The group produced newsletters and attempted to promote Rowbotham’s ideas to the public and scientific community. However, it remained a fringe group with minimal influence.

In 1956, Samuel Shenton founded the Flat Earth Society in Dover, England, with similar aims. Shenton was succeeded by Charles K. Johnson, who moved the headquarters to California and led the Society until his death in 2001. Johnson combined flat Earth advocacy with Christian fundamentalism and anti-government conspiracy theories. Under his leadership, the Society rejected not only mainstream astronomy but also NASA, satellites, and all photographic evidence from space missions. Membership peaked in the 1970s but declined sharply by the early 2000s.

Modern Flat Earth Society members typically espouse the belief that the Earth is a flat, stationary plane, often with the North Pole at the center and Antarctica as a surrounding wall. The Sun and Moon are usually believed to be small, local objects moving in circular paths above the plane, providing day and night cycles through spotlight-like illumination. Gravity is often rejected as a hoax or reinterpreted as a result of buoyancy and density. The most popular alternative explanation among flat Earthers for downward acceleration is that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², a model derived from a misapplication of Einstein’s equivalence principle.

Flat Earth models vary among adherents, with some believing in a dome-shaped firmament enclosing the Earth (echoing Biblical cosmology), while others assert a flat disc extending infinitely. Most models reject heliocentrism, instead adopting geocentric or non-standard frameworks. Some posit that the Sun and Moon move in circular orbits around the disc’s center, while the stars are embedded in a rotating dome or fixed canopy above the Earth. This pseudo-cosmology is often supported by cherry-picked or misunderstood scientific concepts.

Flat Earth beliefs are inherently conspiratorial. Members generally believe that world governments, scientists, educators, and space agencies are involved in a massive cover-up to suppress the truth about Earth’s shape. The motivations alleged for this deception range from control of knowledge to maintaining secularism or generating profit from space programs. NASA is a frequent target, with flat Earthers claiming all space photography and satellite images are fabricated or computer-generated. This narrative positions flat Earthers as truth-seekers defying a corrupt establishment.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence confirms the Earth’s roughly spherical shape. This includes:

Satellite Imagery and Spaceflight: Thousands of images and videos from multiple space agencies (NASA, ESA, CNSA, etc.) depict a spherical Earth from orbit. Continuous satellite monitoring enables global positioning systems, weather forecasting, and telecommunications—all consistent with a globe model.

Circumnavigation and Time Zones: The ability to travel around the globe in continuous paths, the existence of time zones, and variations in star visibility depending on latitude all align with a spherical Earth.

Coriolis Effect and Foucault Pendulum: Observed physical phenomena such as the Coriolis effect (influencing weather patterns and ocean currents) and the Foucault pendulum (demonstrating Earth’s rotation) require a rotating, spherical Earth.

Lunar Eclipses: During a lunar eclipse, the Earth casts a round shadow on the Moon, consistent only with a spherical shape.

Gravitational Consistency: The behavior of gravity and the observable consistency of downward acceleration globally can only be explained by a spherical mass attracting objects toward its center.

Flat Earth experiments typically suffer from methodological errors, confirmation bias, and misuse of scientific concepts. Many flat Earthers invoke personal perception ("the Earth looks flat to me") as a primary epistemic standard, dismissing the need for rigorous measurement and theory. This rejection of scientific methodology and peer review places Flat Earth belief firmly within the realm of pseudoscience.

Flat Earth belief is often rooted in epistemic mistrust, existential uncertainty, or identity politics. Adherents frequently cite a desire to challenge authority or reclaim personal autonomy in understanding the world. For some, flat Earth belief is tied to religious literalism, particularly interpretations of Biblical passages that appear to support a flat Earth model. Others are drawn in through YouTube algorithms or conspiracy forums and adopt the belief as part of a broader anti-establishment worldview.

Belief perseverance, Dunning-Kruger effect, and confirmation bias play significant roles in the persistence of flat Earth belief. Once committed, individuals often seek only reinforcing evidence and become isolated from corrective information. Online communities provide validation, social reinforcement, and shared identity. These communities often vilify dissenters and treat skeptics as part of the conspiracy.

The Flat Earth movement experienced a resurgence in the 2010s, largely due to the rise of social media and video platforms like YouTube. Videos promoting flat Earth theories gained millions of views, and flat Earth influencers built substantial followings. The viral nature of this content, often framed as "just asking questions," contributed to its spread, particularly among younger and disenfranchised audiences.

The phenomenon has been explored in several documentaries, most notably Behind the Curve (2018), which provides insight into the community’s internal dynamics while highlighting its isolation from scientific reasoning. Public interest in the flat Earth movement has prompted debates around free speech, science education, and digital misinformation.

The persistence of flat Earth belief has prompted educators, scientists, and communicators to re-evaluate how science is taught and conveyed. Emphasis is increasingly placed on critical thinking, media literacy, and the philosophy of science. Scientists have engaged in public outreach efforts to explain the nature of evidence and scientific reasoning, often using flat Earth claims as teachable moments about epistemology and skepticism.

The Flat Earth Society represents a small but symbolically potent counter-movement to mainstream science. Its persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence underscores broader issues of mistrust in authority, the role of social media in spreading misinformation, and the challenges of promoting scientific literacy. While the flat Earth belief is demonstrably false, understanding why people believe it is crucial to addressing the root causes of science denial and building resilient public understanding of science.

[unbfacts]

A group of Flat Earthers spent $20,000 on experiments to prove the Earth is flat, including using a high-precision laser gyroscope and a light beam test. Both experiments accidentally provided clear evidence that the Earth is round.

[askallianything]

The other day, a general student came up to me and said I look like a flat-earther....Do I really?

[critical-skeptic]

Why I Call Out Idiots, Ridicule Them, and Still Put in the Intellectual Effort

Let’s get one thing clear right out of the gate: engaging with the intellectually bankrupt isn't about convincing them. It’s not about changing the mind of the conspiracy nut, the QMAGA cultist, the religious zealot, or the Dunning-Kruger poster child who thinks they know more than any expert because they once watched a YouTube video. Most of these people are beyond reasoning. They've willingly turned off the critical thinking switch in their heads and committed to their insulated worldview. Trying to talk them out of it is like trying to teach a fish how to ride a bike—it’s pointless, exhausting, and ultimately a waste of time.

But here's the thing: I’m not talking to them. When I call out their bullshit, ridicule their arguments, and put the intellectual or academic effort into tearing down their fallacies, it's not for their benefit. They’re lost causes. It’s for the one person in the crowd—the bystander, the lurker, the person who hasn’t yet fully bought into the echo chamber of ignorance—who might be open to listening. That person? They’re worth the effort.

There's a popular conception that if you engage with these kinds of people, you should do so respectfully, patiently, and with empathy. Frankly, that’s nonsense. These ideologues don’t deserve respect because they have no respect for truth. They don't deserve empathy because their entire shtick is designed to perpetuate ignorance, division, and sometimes outright harm. When someone uses their platform to spread blatant lies or dangerous fallacies, they should be called out—and if it takes ridicule to do that, so be it.

Critics might say, "But you're not going to convince them if you're dismissive or rude." Guess what? I don’t give a damn. I’m not interested in convincing someone who thinks the Earth is flat, that vaccines are mind control devices, or that an invisible deity is pulling the strings of the universe. What I care about is the other people watching, the ones who are still on the fence. The ones who might be swayed if they see someone actually pushing back against the tide of misinformation. If one person out of a hundred sees my argument and it plants a seed of doubt in their mind about the nonsense they're being fed, that’s worth it.

This is about reaching them—the thinkers, the skeptics, the people who might not even realize they’re hungry for real information. Maybe they’ve been floating around in the middle, too timid or unsure to push back themselves, too lost in the noise to seek out better sources. When they see someone pushing back—whether with logic, mockery, or cold, hard facts—it might just give them the encouragement they need to look deeper.

We live in a time when people are retreating into ideological bubbles, only talking to people who agree with them. That’s dangerous. It allows bad ideas to fester, unchecked, and gives the impression that everyone is either an extremist or a coward. I'm not interested in talking only to my bubble. I want to break through the walls and let people outside see that there’s another way to think. That’s why I engage. That's why I argue. And when necessary, that's why I ridicule.

The problem with staying silent or pretending these people can be reasoned with is that it normalizes their nonsense. It gives the impression that their ideas are just one side of a "legitimate debate." Newsflash: they're not. When you engage with a creationist, you're not debating science versus religion. You're calling out blatant ignorance masquerading as intellect. When you respond to a QMAGA believer who claims Trump was sent by God, you’re not engaging in a political conversation. You’re confronting a cultist mindset. And when you take on a conspiracy theorist who thinks 5G is part of a global mind-control plot, you’re not discussing telecommunications technology; you're pointing out someone’s dangerous disconnection from reality.

So, why do I still bother? Because it matters. Even if 99 out of 100 people are unreachable, there’s always the chance that the one who’s left will see the truth. And that’s worth everything. We all have a responsibility not to just talk to our perceptive bubbles, but to provide others with the tools and information they need to see things for themselves. You don’t have to force anyone; you just have to be there to plant the seed.

The world doesn’t change because a few idiots get smarter—it changes when a silent majority sees that the idiots can and should be called out. When rational people stop being silent and start pushing back, others take notice. And maybe, just maybe, that leads to real change.

This is the goal—what should be everyone’s goal. Not to convince every lost cause, but to ensure that the people on the fence have a clear view of both sides. And to make damn sure they know which side is built on reason, evidence, and truth.

If calling out the bullshitters and ridiculing the dogmatic helps accomplish that, then I’ll gladly do it every day.

[xigheart]

anytime i think i'm remotely normal someone drops a stupid long video abt a stupid thing i'm interested in and i'm viscerally reminded that i'm not

[jackdawsfavorite]

On Symbolic vs Factual Beliefs

“The Truthers, in short, maintained that the government had gone to extreme measures, including killing thousands of its own citizens, in order to carry out and cover up a conspiracy. And yet the same Truthers advertised the conference online and met in a place where they could easily be surveilled. Speakers’ names were posted on the Internet along with videos, photographs, and short bios. The organizers created a publicly accessible forum to discuss next steps, and a couple of attendees spoke to a reporter from the Times, despite the mainstream media’s ostensible complicity in the coverup. By the logic of their own theories, the Truthers were setting themselves up for assassination.

“Their behavior demonstrates a paradox of belief. Action is supposed to follow belief, and yet beliefs, even fervently espoused ones, sometimes exist in their own cognitive cage, with little influence over behavior.”

[adrianastrix]

Those reddit posts did use a lot of words just to say "I have no imagination" or "I'm okay with being the mediocre scientist that bullies the Einstein-level brilliant mind on their biopic by mocking their 'wild baseless theories'" smh

people on the worldbuilding reddit will be like "for an animal to become sapient and form a civilization it would need to live on land, possess a large brain, and have limbs that are able to manipulate objects, proving that a humanoid body is simply the best and most likely shape for any technologically advanced alien" and not realize they're describing a parrot

[zooming-glass]

There's a problem I've been seeing with online spaces involved in debunking pseudoscience, that I will call the Debunker's Goomba Fallacy (IDK if it already has a name). The gist of it is the same as the usual Goomba Fallacy, except for the key issue that the proverbial 'Opinion A' is only assumed by the debunker and never actually expressed by the group being debunked.

A common example is Creationists being hit with arguments about inbreeding, despite the fact that they generally claim that the first organisms were made perfectly (i.e. without the genetic errors that inbreeding concentrates). While this is obviously wrong, it's still what they claim and thus still what ought to be debunked.

[stargazeraurora]

Flat earth?

If the earth was flat, you wouldn't be here. When you drop something, the force of gravity will pull that object towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/s². Gravity is the whole reason we maintain a stable orbit and don't go careening out into space. Gradeschoolers know this! This is not hard!

[yosh-iro]

watching vids debunking flat earth and other conspiracy shit is so fun :)

[lenbryant]

I’m pretty sure this is satire, but the fact that I’m not 100% certain says a lot about where we are as a species.

[patricia-taxxon]

i tried to find armoured skeptic's really old flat earth debunking video, it came out in a time where it might've taken me into the anti-sjw cloud, but it doesn't seem to exist anymore. i remember it being really really unconvincing, like i think he claimed that the horizon would look flat from ANY elevation? somehow? and when the flat earther said there should be stellar parallax from earth's orbit mr skeptic basically said "no, there shouldn't be, because stars are billions of light years away" even though they are much closer than that and there is stellar parallax as a result. how do u fumble debunking flat earth

[snommelp]

YouTube has been recommending me videos debunking flat earth, and I've come to the conclusion that, while the flat earth "model" is nonsensical in the real world, it would make for an amazing fantasy TTRPG setting. Here's the skeleton for making my new game world:

The material plane is infinite horizontally, but finite vertically

Absurdly high in the air (like, "no mortal creature can fly high enough to reach it" high) is an impenetrable firmament

The sun, moon, and stars are all either set in, or otherwise connected to, the firmament

Above the firmament are the celestial planes

Absurdly deep below the surface (like "the deepest depths of the Underdark are shallow" deep) is impenetrable bedrock

Below the bedrock are the infernal planes

The sun (which functions sort of like a spotlight or flashlight) traces a spiraling path throughout the year; six months out, six months back

The north pole is an obscenely tall mountain of magnetic iron at the exact center of the sun's spiral

At the outer reaches of the sun's path, there is an ice wall, beyond which is a realm of otherworldly cold, where natural light never shines

There may, perhaps, be other worlds beyond this land of cold and darkness, worlds with their own suns creating pools of life

[r0ttkins]

He is that my one favorite polish science youtuber

context for non-Poles below

SciFun, the said Youtuber, once made a series debunking all the "evidence" that the earth is flat, fighting all flat earthers beautifully.

all are with the eng sub so you should be able to watch it!

here is first part

[fite-club]

oh my god people are ALREADY trying to "debunk" that "trans women are sexually assaulted more frequently than trans men" post??? you people will literally be given real factual statistical data and go "this is still false" flat-earth-ass motherfuckers

[onecornerface]

Dave McKeegan is one of the best anti-flat-earth channels on YouTube. He takes the flat earth arguments seriously enough to really grapple with what they logically would entail-- and how to attempt to modify or steelman the arguments to solve the resulting problems, and show how the problems cannot be solved on any flat earth assumptions (but can easily be solved by the simple globe earth model).

He provides a lot of information on the basic science and math of topics such as optics and astronomy (e.g. how flat-earthers misuse the concept of refraction), in a pretty accessible way.

And he innovates in his arguments & analysis, that is, he provides a lot of new ideas and insights that haven't been covered on other channels previously. I don't mean he makes new discoveries in science or math, but he develops new ways of explaining why the science and math debunk flat earthism.

A lot of other flat-earth-debunking channels are mainly just about dunking on flat-earthers and making them look silly, and not much new information or insight-- nor much effort to understand the flat-earth arguments' internal structure or assumptions (and why precisely they can't work). But I learn a lot from McKeegan's channel. He also has a lot of good information on the moon missions, and debunking moon landing denialism.