For thousands of years EVERYONE believed we were on a flat earth, irrespective of religion or culture. The Bible describes Earth as a flat circle. The two people I cited above have excellent articles and videos on this fact. Samuel Birley Rowbotham published his book on Zetetic Astronomy in 1881. The debate raged from before Copernicus right up to the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps it stopped because the powers that be had finally managed to capture the educational systems through compulsory schooling. But this is another story.
The other person is a Christian, Rob Skiba. He is open and honest with his research, doing it all in public. He is not a flat earther, but is questioning the official narrative. You can find him here and here.
It is interesting to me that Christian and non-Christian alike are questioning this and have some very valid perspectives.
By the way, please stay away from the co-intel agents already infiltrating the discussion and seeking to control the narrative.
One other site not mentioned in the above link is Mr. Survive and Thrive. I have watched only a few of his videos, but he seems credible thus far. He has a youtube channel with many more videos.
He mentions the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's development of the Special Theory of Relativity in response to the results of that experiment. Here is the established, mainstream view of the experiment: Michelson-Morely
Here is the alternate explanation: 3 Experiments disproving the spinning globe. I'm not sure what it proves because the point of the experiments were to prove the "aether." They failed. One other experiment worth mentioning is the Airy Experiment. I don't know how much of a cover up this is other than simply another failed experiment.
The math is what really intrigued me. The first thought was about flight paths on a spinning globe. You can see an excellent video here by Eric Dubay. The other attempted scientific approach of this was from Brian Mullin. The video is hosted by Globe Skeptic. I will say more on the flight paths question in a moment.
The other mathematical problem that seems to be completely without dispute is the curvature of the earth. The curvature of the earth is not visible. From anywhere. From any real picture. The NASA photos are composites. They freely admit as much on their website. Based on the stated circumference of the flat earth, the earth and your line of site should curve away from you as the distance from the observer to the target increases. The accepted figure is 8 inches per mile. Here is the formula:
r = earth's radiusThis has been proven in experiments to be false. The flat earther's see this as a function of perspective, which comes from the science of optics. Based on the math, you absolutely should not be able to see a building or ship shorter than 600 feet at 30 miles away. Why? because according to the basic math, the horizon has dropped from your perspective by 600.16 feet. Thus, a 100 foot tall building or a 20 foot tall ship from the waterline to the top should not be visible at 30 miles away. It should be physically impossible. Yet if you get binoculars, the ship or the building comes back into view, accounting for the change in perspective due to optics.
^2 = squared
Horizon Miles: Sqrt of ((r + height / 5280) ^2) - r^2
Now the established answer uses magical terms like refraction and mirage to explain this. And it isn't easily explained. See here and here. I don't think the articles address it at all. You be the judge.
Yet even with all that, here is the objection I still have. I work in a scientific field. I studied Aerodynamics, Astronautics, Orbital Mechanics, and Physics. My first job out of college was as a Satellite Operations Officer in the Air Force. The math works out for a globe model. I have seen the telemetry first hand from our geostationary satellites.
Back to the flight paths question. As I was reviewing the math related to that, I reviewed the equations for Small Scale Ballistic Missiles (SSBM's) and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's). There is a correction for a moving earth in these equations. I researched it a bit more and realized I should review rotating coordinate systems and the equations of motion. As I was looking for texts online, I came across this link: Fluid Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean. This is part of a joint program between Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and MIT. It is part of a Master's and PhD track. The point is, the mathematics are advanced. And it is taught as truth by our most renowned institutions.
As I began working through the equations, I realized that due to what was described above, our relationship to a moving ball earth has been explained by relativity, advanced fluid dynamics and coordinate systems, and a viable space program with satellite and missile tests every year.
I just can't believe there is a conspiracy to cover up this math and that the rest of our fellow human beings, who are incredibly smart, are compartmentalized to the point that they can't see the simple mathematical fallacy. The opposite must be true because we have used that very same advanced mathematics to launch satellites in near and far earth orbit.
Something else could be going on, but if you try and negate the globe earth with math, you will fail because we have 100+ years of math and science models that say the globe is correct. My question is how would a satellite stay in orbit if the earth is a flat disk?
Then it occurred to me. Since either we are moving or the stars are moving, we absolutely cannot know for certain which it is until we could see from a third person perspective. Relativity will give us different results. It could very well be that some other mechanism is holding up the satellites. But I want to focus back on the spiritual and philosophical perspectives.
With Copernicus and those that followed, we invented our own mathematics (Newton invented Calculus, though it is up for debate if von Leibniz beat him to it). The same observations can be explained by both a flat earth model with the stars spinning and the globe earth model with the earth spinning. The only difference is that God has been removed from necessity if the earth is a globe. Wouldn't it be just like Lucifer to cleverly drive man to an idea that doesn't need God, just like has been attempted with the unproven theory of Macro-Evolution?
I think this is a distinct possibility. We can make the math work that says a plane flying from east to west experiences inertial forces that delay its track over the earth so that it arrives when it does by simple time and speed calculation. We see the same observation though if the earth were flat with only wind resistance to deal with. So which is right?
This whole debate is interesting because in every area of science since the Renaissance, God and the need for Him has been progressively removed. Why would that be?
I still believe God even if the Earth were a globe. Jesus still came to a globe earth or a flat earth. Jesus still rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father on a globe earth or a flat earth. The Bible still correctly predicted many prophecies and Jesus' birth, life, and death. All of that is not up for debate with me. But it will call into question the claim of biblical inerrancy once again.