An unexpected continuation from my previous post, I felt some things needed further exploration and expansion. I mentioned the word belief earlier and that is a key word in understanding what is fueling the Flat Earth debate. Since irrefutable proof, a verifiable high detail video of the entire spinning globe, is absent, so is argued, a large part of the conventional model is based on a belief, assumptions and theories (however well documented and accepted they might be) brought to us by Science (read NASA), the monopolists of space.
The speed the earth spins, the speed the globe moves around the sun, the speed the solar system as a whole is in motion. The very fortunate en unique coincidences regarding the size of the Moon and Sun and respective distances, which makes them appear equal in size and an eclipse possible. And of course the universal theory stop-gap gravity, as the miracle glue that keeps it all together. A big bang, where everything was instantly created out of nothing. Those notions require, Flat Earth argues, a certain leap of faith or belief. From a young age we are presented with the globe concept, for example in the classroom or on television. Bottom line is, we do not know, but believe. The Sun centric model is compared to a religion and the process by which it is embedded in our mind to programming.
Agreed, we are getting near the borders of Tin Foil Hat country now, but the basic idea of scrutinizing generally accepted ideas and concepts, which can be regarded as the basis of the Flat Earth debate or others like it, is interesting nontheless. It does not equate to conspiracy theory perse, I rather like to see it as keeping an open mind, staying curious and questioning everything. A psychological and intellectual excercise that can be rewarding in itself. It is the journey that counts, not the destination. So let's roll with it a little more.
I mentioned religion, it plays a critical role in the Flat Earth debate. The majority of the ancient documents that mention a flat earth are of religious origin. Most imprortantly it all ties in with the question Why? a lot of the sometimes rabid sceptics seem to wonder about. Why would science or NASA hide the fact that the world is indeed not a globe? What could they possible have to gain from this?
Imagine a religion that does not require belief but instead is based on fact. It would be hard to argue with that, and if you did, you would look silly. It gives the forces behind it control. Now remember Flat Earth considers the Sun centric model a religion, with NASA as the high priests, who regularly give the masses new truths about their insignificance in the vast and empty expanses of the universe. Insignificant, since kickstarted into existance thanks to a incredible cosmic coincidence, a fluke basically. A Flat Earth would suggest quite the opposite and could be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design and more importantly, purpose. This would instantly take away control from the powers that be, make Science look very silly and give humanity a whole new perspective and goals, and possibly lead to a better world. Taking this into consideration Flat Earth of course appears to be just as religious as they claim the Sun centric model to be. The why? can be expanded on (much) further using more down to earth arguments dating back to the Cold War, but i will save that for another post.
Some of the active Flat Earth supporters on YouTube do diligent research and theorize about possible models without working towards the desired outcome and ignoring the rest. These guys get it, at least in my book. An open mind, curious, questioning. It is the journey that counts, not the destination. Thanks for reading, see you next time.