Well, if you go to the beach, gaze over the ocean, what is the reason you cant see land in the horizon if the earth is flat? Even if you brought your biggest telescope, you wouldn't be able to, because the earth is round. That's why when you see ships on the horizon, they will dissapear quickly after a certain length has been traveled, as they are now... well curving. If you want to see the curvature of earth yourself, it is possible to see it from hot air balloons, if you know of a place where you can lend one of those. Alternatively, go "sky-diving" with a parachute, go see the wonderful world we live on for yourself :D

And for the radiation stuff, well yea, we know there is radiation in space, and even with very little knowledge of science, you would know that most radiation is stopped by objects. Alpha is stopped by paper (alpha is the biggest of the radiation particles (and the most dangerous one), and is therefore stopped by very small objects), beta stopped by stuff like bricks or thick alluminium plates, and gamma is stopped by stuff like lead (gamma is also the least damaging type of radiation, and travels the furthest). Nasa knows there is radiation in space, and the spacesuits are made of a fabric that protects the wearer, much like people working in nuclear power-plants

I'm totally playing the devils advocate for the sake of OP's point of view. But real flat earthers will say that everything in your first paragraph is explainable by the law of perspective. There are plenty of videos that show a ship "sinking" below the horizon only to "reappear" once a telescope or some other optical zoom is applied. The last paragraph OP will surely just dismiss as evidence supplied by the lying Nazi's at NASA. Just saying.

Let's look at the law of perspective! It's just some highschool math. Take the top of an object (we'll call it point A), and draw a line striaght down to the ground (point B), then follow the ground to where you are (point C), then back to A. We've just made a right triangle. Give me a distance between points A and B that would give you a negative angle (tan^-1 (Line AB / Line BC)). You can't, it would always appear over the horizon. That's the law of persepctive.

Yea, i had that feeling while typing it, but its ok, he can believe whatever he wants, its a free world :)

Yes, everything you said in your first paragraph is wrong and is explainable by the law of perspective.

The earth is flat.

This is a human zoo.

The law of perspective is very well understood, and we can apply it with some trigonometry. Let’s just use some high school math, and the assumption that the world is flat, and prove that the earth can’t be flat.

I’m standing near the south pole which, on a flat earth, is actually a rim around the edge. I’m looking directly toward the north pole, which is now the point in the center of the circle. It’s the equinox, so the sun will be directly above the equator (a circle with half the radius of the southern polar circle).

I have my friend standing at the 45 degrees longitude to make a measurement for me. He’ll measure the angle to the sun at his local noon, but it doesn’t really matter where he is, as long as he’s at the 45 degrees longitude (north or south won’t matter). He’ll measure that the sun is 45 degrees in the sky. This means that we can construct a right triangle to the sun, and get a figure for the height. We’ll draw a line from my friend to the point on the equator closest to him, and then draw a line from there to the sun, then from the sun back to my friend.

Because a right triangle with one forty five degree angle must, by definition have a second 45 degree angle (because the angles have to add to 180 degrees), we know that the two legs of the triangle have to be exactly the same length. We don’t care about the length of the hypotenuse (for the curious it’s the length of the leg times the square root of 2). A quick google search tells us that it’s about 3000 miles from 45 degrees to the equator, which means the sun must be about 3000 miles in the sky.

Great, now I can use that information to predict where the sun should be from where I’m standing. But, I’ll wait until midnight my time to do it. This way, the sun will be as far away from me as possible. It will be on the opposite side of me, but still over the equator, since it’s still the equinox. A quick google search shows the distance to the equator from the south pole is about 6215 miles, so we can triple that figure to get the distance to opposite side of the equator, 18645 miles (once to get from the south pole to the equator, again to get from the equator to the north pole, and a third time to get from the north pole to the opposite side of the equator, where the sun is).

We know the sun must be 3000 miles high, so we can construct another right triangle and get the angle we should expect to see. We can take the arctangent of 3000/18645 (the ratio of opposite over adjacent on our right triangle) and get that the sun should still be about 9 degrees over the horizon at midnight on the south pole. The sun, at its farthest point, should still be about the width of your fist at arm’s length above the horizon.

By the simple laws of perspective, the earth can’t be flat.

Is the moon also flat? Are all other objects we can observe flat?

Look round to me

Well, I am one of those (fools) who decided the flat earth theory had some credibility.

You sure are.

Eratosthenes determined that the earth was spherical 2200 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

As far as the nature of space goes, it's hard to say. NASA has lied so much to the world that sometimes it's hard to separate fact from fiction. I'm fairly confident we've never been through the Van Allen belt that surrounds the earth, though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things.

so funny you got a down vote there :) wow. what a place this is.

Good luck out there, or in there.

aka Chuang-Tzu.

Shang tsun

The reason I don't quite like the theory is because there's so many people with a lower security clearance than the top people that could leak even a inch of significant evidence. Instead we don't see any. I can't think of any person with significant being an advocate of this theory. Maybe I'm asking for too much but it seems to me that this is far greater than what we can expect from a conspiracy. It just seems ridiculous to be able to keep a secret like this from the public for so many years without a inch of slightest evidence other than "why am I able to see beyond the curve?"

Then again, I am an advocate of the UFO-Conspiracy so maybe I'm being hypocritical saying it's far too great to hide away.

Nothing is real. And nothing to get hung about.

How is it that you feel you don't have evidence that space exists? What?

Do you need evidence that Hawaii exists because you've never been there? What about Dallas or San Francisco?

So if you met Buzz Aldron and he told you he had indeed been to outer space that's all the proof you would need?

Why do you think you have to experience something yourself to believe it's true?

You just said your friends word was enough to convince you Asia was real, so clearly you don't actually have to see something to believe it's real.

So you don't think it's real because it's not economically feasible? Do you think SpaceX is a fake company?

We live in a dystopian sci-fi movie. Once you take the red pill you can't go back.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRiLP32qfs

I've seen everything this man has produced. Even though I don't believe the flat earth theory I think he is an amazing researcher and entertainer. By far the best flat earth theorist out there. He's the president of the International Flat Earth Research Society.

You are right earth is flat. I'm working on a new theory as for why NASA lied and our human history that is buried and lied about.

Consider the Truman Show has a bit of truth in plain site.

Consider we are under a dome with ice walls on the outer edges. Consider the reason NASA lies about space is to give us the illusion we aren't contained.

Consider these gatekeepers who code mysterious truths in media.

Consider that Ancient pyramids across the globe are aligned with particular star constellations for a reason. These pyramids were built by the original slave masters of this planet paying homage to their original location in the star system.

Consider we are in an huge, advanced human breeding enclosure.

Animals who know they are contained no longer act natural.

The original iteration of this "matrix" we are trapped in didn't work out. Probably a slave rebellion that destroyed the ancient cities. Same goes for all ancient societies who disappeared and whom have had their past buried.

Your current reality was originally rebuilt with the idea of "free will" which is where the myth of religions came from. To assemble some sort of order.

We are living in a time right now where this world we know is about to be "reset" to maintain order before things get out of control.

The freemasons are free because they are the gatekeepers of this prison planet.

Flood myths are true because floods in the past have been used as a tool for mass extinction and reset of society to maintain order. They use floods so survivers think it is natural and that a particular religion was actually true all along. This makes it easier for them to be reset into the next reality.

Things seem so crazy right now because they are testing human emotions to the extreme before the finale.

Humans disappear in mass yearly because they are used for parts, blood or toys.

Have you heard of concave earth theory? It says that the earth IS curved, but it curves upwards not downwards.

I would recommend Concave Earth Treatise by Steven Christopher (aka Lord Steven Christ).

It gives an introduction to the evidence behind theory whilst mocking NASA and mainstream astronomy in general.

It is an entertaining and informative read.

Neither the official globe model nor the flat earth model work. The trick with flat earth is that it uses proofs against the official model as proofs of the new model, but this is a logical fail. Disproving one thing does not directly prove another.

The Concave Earth model does not suffer from the Southern problems that the flat earth model does.

A great resource for Concave Earth information with a forum: wildheretic.com

One of the key points to understand is that light does not travel straight through the atmosphere, but we interpret images assuming straight light. An experiment that shows light always bends upwards through the atmosphere: http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Theodolites When we interpret our long range visual observations in this context we find that objects we see on the horizon straight in front of us must actually be above us.

"The Cellular Cosmogeny" (1922) Cyrus Teed - A book by an early proponent of the theory.

I have issues with behavior of the most visible proponent of concave earth theory, Steven Christopher. Given his actions, I think it is possible that he is playing a cointelpro type role in blackwashing this issue. But the credibility of a proponent of an idea has no direct bearing on the validity of that idea. Ideas stand separate from people.

What about the globe earth model doesn't work?

[deleted]

Did you just copy and paste this from your previous comment by mistake or laziness?

Mistake

An example would be lighthouses. The visible distance for lighthouses is much too far for the dimensions of the earth we are given assuming straight light. There would be massive humps of water in the way. In order for this to work, light would be required to bend by an amount nearly matching the supposed curvature.

Airy's failure showed that stars move relative to a stationary earth rather than the other way around.

Another thing to consider is how the atmosphere is supposed to work. If the earth is moving at 1000mph at the equator, what is the atmosphere doing? Does it move in lockstep with the earth, maintaining the same radial velocity out to the edge of space? If not should there not be a massive wind blowing constantly in one direction? At the poles there would be 0 radial velocity, so here the atmosphere does not move at all?

What about the barrier between the atmosphere and space? How does the force of an infinite vacuum not suck it all away? The force of gravity we are told exists is an incredibly weak one in comparison.

There is no "force of an infinite vacuum". Air moves from regions of high pressure to regions of low pressure, trying to find an equilibrium. The atmosphere's pressure with respect to the vacuum of space is counterbalanced by the pull of gravity towards the Earth. Gravity does not have to fight against some infinite vacuum force because that's not how vacuums work.

Is the moon also flat? Are all other objects we can observe flat?

Look round to me

The law of perspective is very well understood, and we can apply it with some trigonometry. Let’s just use some high school math, and the assumption that the world is flat, and prove that the earth can’t be flat.

I’m standing near the south pole which, on a flat earth, is actually a rim around the edge. I’m looking directly toward the north pole, which is now the point in the center of the circle. It’s the equinox, so the sun will be directly above the equator (a circle with half the radius of the southern polar circle).

I have my friend standing at the 45 degrees longitude to make a measurement for me. He’ll measure the angle to the sun at his local noon, but it doesn’t really matter where he is, as long as he’s at the 45 degrees longitude (north or south won’t matter). He’ll measure that the sun is 45 degrees in the sky. This means that we can construct a right triangle to the sun, and get a figure for the height. We’ll draw a line from my friend to the point on the equator closest to him, and then draw a line from there to the sun, then from the sun back to my friend.

Because a right triangle with one forty five degree angle must, by definition have a second 45 degree angle (because the angles have to add to 180 degrees), we know that the two legs of the triangle have to be exactly the same length. We don’t care about the length of the hypotenuse (for the curious it’s the length of the leg times the square root of 2). A quick google search tells us that it’s about 3000 miles from 45 degrees to the equator, which means the sun must be about 3000 miles in the sky.

Great, now I can use that information to predict where the sun should be from where I’m standing. But, I’ll wait until midnight my time to do it. This way, the sun will be as far away from me as possible. It will be on the opposite side of me, but still over the equator, since it’s still the equinox. A quick google search shows the distance to the equator from the south pole is about 6215 miles, so we can triple that figure to get the distance to opposite side of the equator, 18645 miles (once to get from the south pole to the equator, again to get from the equator to the north pole, and a third time to get from the north pole to the opposite side of the equator, where the sun is).

We know the sun must be 3000 miles high, so we can construct another right triangle and get the angle we should expect to see. We can take the arctangent of 3000/18645 (the ratio of opposite over adjacent on our right triangle) and get that the sun should still be about 9 degrees over the horizon at midnight on the south pole. The sun, at its farthest point, should still be about the width of your fist at arm’s length above the horizon.

By the simple laws of perspective, the earth can’t be flat.