1. Why is it always NASA? Why do these conspiracies never involve the European, Japanese or hell even the Russian space agencies.
Because they're largely American for some reason, and countries other than America don't exist to them.
Zing x 5 Agree x 2 Funny x 1 (list)

2. [h=3]What Is Gravity?[/h]Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
I would write a witty joke about this but the idea of people believing this is causing my brain to wither.
Agree x 5 (list)

3. Why is it always NASA? Why do these conspiracies never involve the European, Japanese or hell even the Russian space agencies.
Well,people from my place blame jews instead
Funny x 11 Agree x 1 (list)

4. Well,people from my place blame jews instead
I am interested, how do jews hide a flat earth?
Funny x 10 (list)

5. My favorite part is when they try to explain gravity. Basically they say that the world is accelerating upwards, so we feel it as gravity.

That means (assuming the earth is just 6000 years old, because thats often what flat earthers think too), that if you multiply the acceleration of earths gravity (9.81 meters per second) with the number of seconds in 6000 years (60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 6000), we would be currently moving at 309368160 meters per second.

Which is faster than the speed of light
Agree x 3 (list)

6. My favorite part is when they try to explain gravity. Basically they say that the world is accelerating upwards, so we feel it as gravity.

That means (assuming the earth is just 6000 years old, because thats often what flat earthers think too), that if you multiply the acceleration of earths gravity (9.81 meters per second) with the number of seconds in 6000 years (60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 6000), we would be currently moving at 309368160 meters per second.

Which is faster than the speed of light
Yeah, but to them "speed of light" probably doesn't hold any value either way.
Agree x 9 (list)

7. Yeah, but to them "speed of light" probably doesn't hold any value either way.
Actually, even to them they have to acknowledge this somehow, oddly enough.

I think the flat earth society tries to explain this that our world is in a moving plane of space, or something. So we are accelerating and not at the same time.

Its like watching a computer trying to explain the sentence "this statement is false"
Artistic x 1 Friendly x 1 (list)

8. Actually, even to them they have to acknowledge this somehow, oddly enough.

I think the flat earth society tries to explain this that our world is in a moving plane of space, or something. So we are accelerating and not at the same time.

Its like watching a computer trying to explain the sentence "this statement is false"
So, we're moving "upwards" in a similar fashion to how the big bang expanded, which also happened at way beyond the speed of light.
I actually quite like the endless icy void beyond south pole idea though, would make a cool sci-fi setting
Agree x 1 (list)

9. I am interested, how do jews hide a flat earth?
Stanley Kubrick is a Jew.
Stanley Kubrick directed the fake NASA moon landing video.
The Jews are behind it all.
Funny x 9 (list)

10. I am interested, how do jews hide a flat earth?
A really big Yamaka?
Funny x 4 Zing x 2 Agree x 1 (list)

11. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!
This is comedy gold:
Old camera from an EchoStar satellite in geosynchronous orbit.

It exists but they don't think its real.

Edited:

I just discount flat earthers as extremely dedicated trolls. It's fun to think about and argue with when you got time to kill.

12. I would write a witty joke about this but the idea of people believing this is causing my brain to wither.
i've heard another theory where gravity is accounted for by "earth" simply accelerating directly upwards indefinately at a rate identical to gravity's effect. So "Gravity" is any body wanting to stay static while the earth moves up beneath it.

But by what force "earth" moves upwards indefinitely and consistently, they can't explain.

13. i've heard another theory where gravity is accounted for by "earth" simply accelerating directly upwards indefinately at a rate identical to gravity's effect. So "Gravity" is any body wanting to stay static while the earth moves up beneath it.

But by what force "earth" moves upwards indefinitely and consistently, they can't explain.
The main consensus among them is a combination of the "Flat Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 Indefinitely Theory" and the "Density Causes Things To Fall and Float Theory" it seems.

My main issue with the Flat Earth Theory is... how the fuck do the Sun and Moon float about in circles about 4K miles(?) above the surface of the Flat Earth? What force holds them in the sky? What force propels them forwards in an elliptical orbit forever?

Flattards seem to believe that, through science, they can prove the Earth to be flat and to not be round. They use all sorts of convoluted, awkward maths and diagrams and explanations for how the different parts work - the whole fucking thing flies upwards and there's a dome around it and this and that - but it's also a religious movement as well. There are aspects that "God" is responsible for - the physical dome structure, the "Ice Wall" (lol) and so on. They don't even attempt to use science to explain several aspects of their devolved drivel of hypotheses that lack proof.

I mean, it's hilarious and all, but it's sad too..
Agree x 9 (list)

14. "Flat Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 Indefinitely Theory"
Isn't acceleration change in speed? Meaning it's constantly picking up speed? Wouldn't that kinda, y'know, run into issues regarding the speed of light eventually?
Agree x 3 Late x 1 (list)

15. Consider yourself edumocated
http://timecube.2enp.com/
Am I supposed to be confused by this? Is this just a malfunctioning AI trying to make up science or what?

Edited:

also fuck the next page button doesn't work

16. Flat Earthers always remind me of the golden rule of conspiracy theories, which is to ask whether or not the conspiracy affects the rich and powerful. Kurzgesagt have a great video on it:

Of course these people seem to think that the rich are behind the 'globe myth', but they sure do spend a lot of time here in the real world considering there is a much nicer resource rich area beyond the ice wall?

17. Isn't acceleration change in speed? Meaning it's constantly picking up speed? Wouldn't that kinda, y'know, run into issues regarding the speed of light eventually?
Unless it's on circular path, as change of direction is accelerating.
Agree x 3 (list)

18. Unless it's on circular path, as change of direction is accelerating.
Fair point. Though I think that solution might actually bring up even more questions, lol.
Agree x 1 (list)

19. Unless it's on circular path, as change of direction is accelerating.
No, couldn't be, that would invoke their hated enemy, the coriolis effect.
Agree x 1 (list)

20. Apparently Antarctica is actually the "Ice wall" encircling the world and the North Pole is at the center.
that would be a neat idea for an RPG setting
Agree x 5 (list)

21. I always found their argument of "the horizon looks flat" silly because, when living on a mountain near a sea, you can plainly see the Earth's curvature with your eyeballs.
Agree x 13 (list)

22. I always found their argument of "the horizon looks flat" silly because, when living on a mountain near a sea, you can plainly see the Earth's curvature with your eyeballs.
Something that can also be experienced if you sail

23. I always found their argument of "the horizon looks flat" silly because, when living on a mountain near a sea, you can plainly see the Earth's curvature with your eyeballs.
I imagine they'll just explain that away as an optical illusion
Agree x 1 (list)

24. I saw news about this on a finnish news-site and I thought "Heh, I'll go look at the comments to see fellow finnish people making fun of them haha" and what I saw was stuff like
"How can we fly around the world then?"
"PLANES HAVE WHEELS YOU IDIOT"
And I had to stumble away with the scraps of my withering brain.
Funny x 18 (list)

25. Yeah, because Renaissance started around that time, those people are going to the other direction.
People believed the world was a sphere even before then.

Aristotle proved the earth was a sphere around 330 BC. Eratosthenes measure the circumference of the earth around 200 BC using 2 wooden poles in Egypt, and he was only off by a few meters.

People in the West have believed the Earth was a sphere for thousands of years. During the entirety of Christianity even the most hardcore theologists believed the Earth was a sphere.

These people are just completely insane.
Winner x 8 (list)

26. People believed the world was a sphere even before then.

Aristotle proved the earth was a sphere around 330 BC. Eratosthenes measure the circumference of the earth around 200 BC using 2 wooden poles in Egypt, and he was only off by a few meters.

People in the West have believed the Earth was a sphere for thousands of years. During the entirety of Christianity even the most hardcore theologists believed the Earth was a sphere.

These people are just completely insane.
For the sake of pedantry, I feel obliged to point out that Eratosthenes measurement was based on a few assumptions that weren't completely correct (close enough) and resulted in his measurement being 66 km different (0.16%) from the currently accepted polar circumference of the Earth
Informative x 1 (list)

27. its almost as if people are just looking for a way to be mad at the government and they see flat earth theory as the way to do that

28. For the sake of pedantry, I feel obliged to point out that Eratosthenes measurement was based on a few assumptions that weren't completely correct (close enough) and resulted in his measurement being 66 km different (0.16%) from the currently accepted polar circumference of the Earth
My bad, but 66km is still impressive given the scales we are talking here, plus it does not change the fact that even back then people already believed in the idea of a spherical earth.

Nowadays that we have pictures of the earth taken from orbit the very notion of the earth being flat can be disproved by a quick google search. And yet we have people who make entire websites about how it's all a big government conspiracy.

It just boggles my mind how this can even happen.
Agree x 8 (list)

29. I imagine they'll just explain that away as an optical illusion
Which, as with most of their explanations, really just brings up more questions than it answers.

30. Isn't acceleration change in speed? Meaning it's constantly picking up speed? Wouldn't that kinda, y'know, run into issues regarding the speed of light eventually?
Yes, as my post above explains, we would already actually be moving faster than the speed of light

31. that would be a neat idea for an RPG setting
saw somebody suggest stealing dnd settings from conspiracy theorists on this wild one

the theory is that there's no actual forests left because we cut down the 'real' trees, which are so huge that the stumps left behind are actually what we perceive as mesas

The big trees we have now are mere saplings, which if left to grow could eventually become that huge again, with redwoods being the longest we've allowed them to regrow

Rock is wood. Or rather, wood becomes rock as it grows and the trees reach massive heights. They essentially mined the trees for useful minerals and metals, and for the construction of whatever secret structres they use to control us.
not sure if this person was explaining it as an observer or a believer but that's pretty on par with the explanations we were talking about for what's beyond the antarctic 'wall'. throw some time travel in and you've got yourself a history mystery that can wildly affect timelines
Artistic x 19 Funny x 1 (list)

32. -snip-

33. and for the construction of whatever secret structres they use to control us.
What the actual fuck.
Funny x 2 (list)

34. -snip-
x 26 x 2 x 1 x 1 x 1 (list)

35. To be honest has there ever been an video of the Earth 360 degrees that's real footage? Just curious.

I just don't think it's unlikely the world could be flat. Humans have been good at being wrong before and science is just theories after all. Even math.
There has, and many times over it has been recorded. Humanity's space ventures would be impossible if earth wasn't a sphere, and two seconds of a childern's space book would give the main points of thousands of years of evidence the earth is round.

Misplaced, or skepticism for the sake of skepticism, is foolish. Math and science are never right or wrong, they are just the models and the process of developing the models to make sense of the evidence we already witness. The earth is not flat because quite literally nothing indicates that the earth is flat. Please understand that.
Agree x 2 Friendly x 1 (list)

36. To be honest has there ever been an video of the Earth 360 degrees that's real footage? Just curious.
Yes. Many many videos. Of course, there will be always people who decry such footage as being with a fisheye lens, or what have you, and to go to such lengths to prove them wrong, if you can even prove them wrong. It goes heavily in the territory of proving a negative (not impossible, just often much more difficult) and even if you do, they pop out other reasons, which all "allow" the previous to be true. Of course, those reasons can be proven false, until they bring up another reason, and on and on. Sometimes even falling into circular reasoning

I just don't think it's unlikely the world could be flat. Humans have been good at being wrong before and science is just theories after all. Even math.
Seriously, I would toxx myself on basis that the earth is round and will never be proven flat, if it weren't for the fact that it would be an absolute joke (more of a parody) and a waste of time. Also, "science is just theories" is completely inaccurate as to what makes science (and math) and far from entirely correct. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the earth is flat. Meanwhile it has been observed and can be viewed without observing the earth from space, that the earth is round. Everything indicates that the earth is round. Nothing that it is flat.
Informative x 1 (list)

37. I just don't think it's unlikely the world could be flat.
So the Earth being flat despite the numerous logical inconsistencies required for it to conform to that idea is somehow the likely option while it being a sphere, which everything we have observed suggests and which physics suggests is the likely course, is less likely?
Humans have been good at being wrong before and science is just theories after all. Even math.
Yeah except a scientific theory actually requires a very high degree of supporting evidence in order to be considered an actual theory. Being so overly wrong about our understanding of the physical world that we mistakenly thought the world was a sphere when it was flat would undermine the very basis of science itself. It would require things to have been misunderstood on such a widespread level that we would have noticed the inconsistency long before now. We're actually pretty damn good at realizing when we're missing something even if we are struggling to figure out exactly what we're missing. From what I recall, the ideas of atoms and subatomic structures, for example, was theorized by quite a few people long before we were able to prove that those things exist because it was the only way we could explain several things we'd observed in physics.

On the flip side the logic required to support the idea of a flat Earth has many inconsistencies. Almost every single time you explain one inconsistency away it will only create two more. The entire thing is a very interesting thought experiment for sure but the very premise is on such a shaky base that it's laughable to suggest it's not only "not unlikely" but more probable than the Earth being a sphere.

To pose a fundamental question you'd need to answer for a flat Earth to be true: If the Earth were somehow flat then how is it that literally every physical observation we have made, with camera or our own eyes, suggests it's spherical? Same with other planets or moons or stars. And if those things are somehow spherical then why are they spherical when the Earth is not? If the Earth is flat then how can you travel in one direction and eventually end up at the exact same spot you started from no matter what planar direction you choose? And if the Earth is flat and it appearing as a sphere, even from space, is some trick of the light then how do you explain that from space you can only see around 50% of the Earth at any given time with the rest being completely out of sight? Even if you assume the asinine ideas of light bending causing it, it still doesn't actually explain it away. If it were a matter of light bending then the part of the Earth you can't see should still be blocking surrounding light in some way yet everything that isn't the Earth is either general star fields or another local system body.
Winner x 2 (list)

38. To be honest has there ever been an video of the Earth 360 degrees that's real footage? Just curious.

I just don't think it's unlikely the world could be flat. Humans have been good at being wrong before and science is just theories after all. Even math.
ive seen so much that I am not even sure if this is irony or not
Agree x 1 (list)

39. To be honest has there ever been an video of the Earth 360 degrees that's real footage? Just curious.

-and science is just theories after all. Even math.
ive seen so much that I am not even sure if this is irony or not
poe's law at its finest

I can't believe this is anything but satire but by god I've seen these statements used in all seriousness to try undermining the validity of any hard science that can be used against something backed only by fervent belief; this sets the ground that photos and footage are doctored or otherwise fake, and that any scientific backing, even straight up math, is somehow only guesses and assumptions (the word most are looking for is a hypothesis, and [alice explains the status of theory above])

only thing missing is after getting dogpiled on with a ton of corrections and razzing, the poster retorts that they don't actually believe flat earth stuff, insisting that they just enjoy debating and are flexing their skills
Agree x 5 (list)

40. Yes, as my post above explains, we would already actually be moving faster than the speed of light
I just have to comment on this because no, that's not how relativity works, although I can understand why it's easy to think about it like that.

I'm not super knowledgeable about this and I'm really bad at simplifying this stuff, but let me give it a shot (and if I'm wrong anywhere, anyone who's studied relativity in any depth are welcome to correct me).

Velocity needs to be measured relative to something, because there's no fixed frame in the universe that you can use, and this is also related to why time is different in different frames.

Say for example you went into a rocket accelerating away from the Earth. From your perspective you can keep accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 longer than the ~8500 hours it would take to reach the speed of light (c) from the perspective of the Earth, assuming you have the fuel required for that.
However from the Earth's perspective your acceleration will slow down as you approach the speed of light relative to Earth, and the closer you get to c, the slower your acceleration will be, in such a way that you can always get closer to c as seen from the Earth, but never reach it. The way time is experienced on the rocket will be different from on the Earth (time will seem to pass slower on the rocket), and it's because of that effect that the rocket can seem to accelerate differently as seen from two different perspectives.

As a related example, imagine you're on a spaceship travelling at 1m/s slower than c relative to some point somewhere far away in space, so it doesn't really affect you. There's nothing stopping you from walking forwards through the ship at more than 1m/s relative to the ship.

Obviously this doesn't mean the flat earth accelerating upwards forever is a valid hypothesis/theory though, there's a bunch of other problems related to that (like, what causes the Earth to accelerate upwards, and why does that force or whatever it is only affect the Earth and not the things and people on it).
Informative x 1 (list)