What is the basic model of the Earth according to flat earth theory?

1. What flat‑Earth proponents say the map looks like

Most contemporary flat‑Earth maps place the North Pole at the center of a circular disk and locate Antarctica as a continuous ice wall at the outer edge that “holds everything in,” a layout frequently noted by observers of the movement and summarized in encyclopedia and news reporting ^{[2] [4] [1]}.

2. How day and night are explained in the model

Flat‑Earth descriptions typically avoid a distant Sun and instead put the Sun (and often the Moon) relatively close above the plane, moving in circular paths that illuminate parts of the disk to create day and night; writers who explain the model say these bodies are much smaller and nearer than in mainstream astronomy ^{[3] [5]}.

3. The firmament, light behavior, and ad hoc fixes

Many versions include a dome or “firmament” enclosing the disk; to reconcile observations like sunrise/set and differing twilight times, proponents posit mechanisms such as light bending, localized illumination, or perspective effects — explanations that mainstream scientists and science communicators say are ad hoc and inconsistent with observed physics ^{[3] [6] [7]}.

4. Origins and modern organisation of the idea

Although flat‑Earth ideas date back to ancient cosmologies, the modern movement coalesced in the 19th century (Zetetic/Rowbotham) and re‑emerged with the Flat Earth Society in the 20th century; internet and social media growth in the 2000s expanded its reach, producing conferences and paid events described in reporting and reference articles ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

5. How proponents treat conflicting observations (flights, horizons, gravity)

Flat‑Earth advocates often reinterpret aviation routes, horizons, or gravity to fit the disc model — for example disputing conventional explanations for flight paths or invoking non‑standard accounts of gravity — tactics that critics call misinterpretations of navigation, atmospheric optics, and physics ^{[8] [6] [7]}.

6. Scientific rebuttals and where the model fails

Mainstream science and outreach organizations emphasize that a disc model cannot account for a wide set of independent observations—stellar motions, circumnavigation, satellite imagery, consistent gravity behavior, and horizon curvature—which is why scientists reject the model as contrary to two millennia of evidence ^{[9] [7] [6]}.

7. Internal variations and uncertainty within the movement

Flat‑Earth adherents do not present a single, universally agreed technical blueprint: while many use the North‑center/Antarctic‑rim map, individuals differ about dome details, precise Sun/Moon sizes and altitudes, and explanations for phenomena; reporting from conferences and commentary by movement participants shows these internal disagreements ^{[4] [2]}.

8. Why the model persists despite scientific consensus

Observers and analysts say the movement’s appeal links to distrust of scientific institutions, conspiracy thinking, community identity, and social‑media amplification rather than new empirical evidence; Britannica and other commentators point to these cultural drivers as key to recent growth ^[1].

Limitations and sourcing note: This summary draws on the provided reporting and explanatory pieces about contemporary flat‑Earth claims and mainstream responses; available sources do not mention every variant of the model or specific numerical parameters for every proponent’s map, so some internal versions and fringe elaborations are not covered here ^{[1] [2] [3]}.