The claim is that the ice wall is the “edge” of the known world, and that whatever is beyond it is unknown.
They don’t list an explanation for why a transantarctic flight can start at the coast on one one side of Antarctica and then arrive at the coast on the far side of the continent. This is something that should be impossible according to the flat earth model.
To be fair, this isn’t a simple test available to us common folk.
If you actually did it, your observations would be dismissed by any flat-earther who wasn’t on that flight with you. They’d cite some kind of navigational error, saying you actually flew on some kind of long arc that brought you back out to the coast somewhere else along the edge of the world.
If you offered to take a flat-earther with you, they’d likely decline, since (according to their model) your flight would never return. On the off-chance you managed to convince one to come with you, they’d again cite navigational error as the reason for your safe return to the known world.
An alternative: Circumnavigate Antarctica, hugging the coastline and measuring distance traveled. By the spherical-earth model, the distance should be about 8900 miles. By the flat-earth model, it should be more like 50,000 miles. They could claim some kind of speed/distance measurement error, but they’d have to explain why it would be so repeatable - by different planes/navigators/pilots. Eventually they’d have to fall back to their old standby, claiming a vast conspiracy theory. At which point you have to admit there’s nothing you can do. The kinds of people who believe in conspiracy theories are the kinds of people who can never be convinced of the truth of anything that casts doubt on their conspiracy theory - no matter how big and implausible the conspiracy theory may be.
By that logic, you could just as easily call bullshit on their Flat Earth theory. “Have you been to the edge? Have you seen it with your own eyes? Then you have no proof that the Earth is flat and you’re just lying to support the conspiracy!”
There are lots of way to demonstrate a spheroid Earth but this is not one of them. As the sun disappears past the edge of a flat Earth, naturally taking a higher vantage point would allow you to see the sun again.
When a ship is sighted at the horizon, first the top of its mast is visible then gradually the lower parts of the ship become visible. If Earth were flat you would see the whole ship as soon as you could see any of it.
Agreed, the problem is that they’re used to being called on their bull and are completely unfazed by it. They know, with absolute perfect clarity, what the Truth is. At best, anyone who disagrees with them is just simply mistaken. There is no amount of logic, facts, science, historical or photographic evidence or personal testimonial that can sway them from their world view. It’s useless to attempt to sway their views on this matter and I waste no time on the attempt.
That’s where they want to take the conversation. It’s all a conspiracy, and the “fact” that access to “Antarctica” is heavily regulated by international treaty is proof enough to all of them that the Rothschilds are all in control (or whatever).
I wonder how flat earthers explain the fact that the moon appears upside down when seen from Australia, compared to how it looks from the northern hemisphere.
If you really want to know what they believe, the Oh no, Ross and Carrie! podcast did interviews of Mark Sargent and Jeran Campanella. They also participated in some meetings and experiments with flat earthers - just search their web site for “flat earth.”
I think Mark Sargent seemed to imply that the sky is a giant artificial display that can show the stars, Moon, etc in any way they want us to see them. I remember Ross asking if it was like a lenticular display, showing different things depending on view angle, and he basically said yes. With this explanation they can dismiss pretty much any argument based on observing the sky.
My girlfriend’s brother works with a guy who is a flat-earther. So much so that his daughter caused a stir in school by confronting her teacher who was showing a spherical earth.
This guy has been dying to “discuss” his view with me - with the challenge for me to prove him wrong.
I’ve given this a lot of thought, and even checked out the flat earth website (there are SO many questions about that model, and you need to have some “basis” or foundation from which to start any counter-arguments).
I decided two things:
that to prove that the earth is round might be “too much”. So I decided to focus on dis-proving the flat earth model. I figured if I could poke holes in his view, he would then be open to the truth and see how none of the failings are valid with the true model.
it would be best to dis-prove his view with observations that he could see/confirm personally. He would not have to trust anything other than his own experience. (no trusting those “faked” NASA photos, etc.)
My first thought was “if the earth were flat, why would there be a need for time zones ?” That is, a flat earth would all experience the same “day” and “night”. But the flat-earthers have an explanation for that: the sun is a LOT closer than you think, and in being so close, the “daylight” is focused on only parts of the (flat) earth at a time.
I considered the eclipse idea (with the flat earth model, it is unclear “what” causes lunar eclipses). But this would require having him observe a lunar eclipse, and this could take a while.
So my next idea was kind of an inverse of Eratosthenes’ approach. Being that the flat-earther is in the northern hemisphere, I was going to have him measure the angle from the horizon to the North Star (I even made a crude sextant for him) at different locations (one where he lives, one several hundred miles south). IF he believed the North Star to be “far enough” away, then the angles (his latitude) would be different. This could not be with a flat earth.
Again using the North Star, if I could get him to travel south of the equator, I was going to have him confirm that he could no longer see the North Star. But this was a bit trickier in that it might be tougher to find “reference stars” to “point to” the North Star (or where it should be) as well. I thought this might be too prone to error to be conclusive.
The problem with this approach is, disproving one flat-earth model does not prove a round/spherical earth.
Yes, their model usually shows the sun hovering over the flat earth, like this. That link also discusses problems with this model, so that’s a good start. Major points being: how do they explain sunsets? And how do they explain why the Sun doesn’t get bigger mid-day?
That last point is easy to measure. Just rig up a simple pinhole projector.
Wouldn’t work, they think the night sky is a dome above the flat earth.
Have there been any “prominent” flat-earthers that have renounced their views? Such a person could help explain the thought process both for believing and non-believing.
I have heard this many times, but when I try to verify it, it never works. The horizon and distant objects are indistinct for too many reasons, such as haze. Have you actually tried this?
I believe the earth is round, I just don’t think this demo works well enough to use.
