Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
I believe the earth is flat.
Executive summary
The claim “the Earth is flat” is an ancient idea that modern science and multiple expert accounts reject; encyclopedias and science outlets describe flat-Earth belief as a disproven conception and a contemporary conspiracy movement [1] [2]. Empirical demonstrations cited in recent reporting include shadow/analemma recordings, Antarctic travel, and space photography; journalists and scientists use these to show roundness and to explain why flat-Earth belief persists [3] [4] [5].
1. How scientists and reference works describe the idea
Major reference works and scientific outlets call flat Earth an “archaic and scientifically disproven conception” and characterize the recent movement as a conspiracy-driven resurgence spread via social media (Wikipedia: Flat Earth; Britannica) [1] [2]. Britannica summarizes research that links the movement’s appeal to mistrust of official science, community loyalty and online misinformation [2]. NASA and science communicators point back to classical observations—star motions and differing sun shadows at different latitudes—as foundational evidence that Earth is round [5].
2. Real-world, reproducible evidence routinely cited against flat-Earth claims
Reporters and scientists point to several reproducible observations: the way ship hulls disappear bottom-first over a horizon, the shape of Earth’s shadow on the Moon during lunar eclipses, circumnavigation, and photographic evidence from space (earth-site summary; NASA; APOD) [6] [5] [7]. Popular recent demonstrations include a year-long time-lapse tracing a building’s shadow and an internet user’s analemma-style argument—both used to illustrate the geometry of a curved, tilted globe (Gizmodo; IFLScience) [3] [8].
3. High-profile experiments that challenged flat-Earth believers
Journalism has covered trips and experiments where flat-Earth advocates sought to test their ideas. One widely reported example: a flat-Earth YouTuber who traveled to Antarctica expecting daily sunrise/sunset behavior, and instead encountered the Midnight Sun phenomenon he did not anticipate—reporters framed that trip as evidence that his model failed to predict polar solar behavior (NDTV) [4]. Coverage uses these outcomes to show that globe-based predictions match observations in ways flat models struggle to reproduce [4].
4. Why some people still endorse flat-Earth ideas
Academic and journalistic analyses attribute continued belief not to lack of accessible evidence but to sociology: mistrust of institutions, identity inside online groups, and conspiracy framing. Britannica and University of Melbourne reporting link the movement’s growth to community dynamics and the way misinformation spreads online [2] [9]. Scientific American’s exploration of the movement describes schisms within the community and notes that some adherents genuinely believe the model while others may troll or perform for attention [10].
5. Common flat-Earth counter-arguments and how reporters respond
Flat-Earth narratives often point to the subjective appearance of flat ground and cite apparent anomalies (e.g., horizon looks straight from ground level). Journalistic and scientific responses demonstrate that local flatness is compatible with a large-radius sphere and offer practical tests—shadow measurements at different latitudes, analemma observations, and photographic evidence from space—that match spherical-Earth predictions (NASA; Gizmodo; earth-site) [5] [3] [6].
6. Media framing, community dynamics and “controlled opposition” claims
Reporting on modern flat-Earth groups documents internal distrust: some adherents accuse others of being “shills” or controlled opposition, which complicates public discussion and makes centralized engagement difficult (Modern flat Earth beliefs) [11]. Journalists caution that this dynamic can create echo chambers where contradictory evidence is dismissed as fabricated [11].
7. What current reporting does not address (limitations)
Available sources do not mention any new, peer‑reviewed scientific study that supports a flat-Earth model; coverage focuses on debunking experiments, sociological analysis, reference‑work summaries and high‑profile anecdotal tests (not found in current reporting). Also, while many articles document demonstrations against flat-Earth claims, they do not exhaust every possible counterargument from adherents; therefore detailed rebuttals of specific modern flat‑Earth formulations (e.g., proposed mathematical models) are not catalogued across these sources (not found in current reporting).
8. Practical steps if you want to test claims yourself
Reporters and science communicators point to simple, repeatable tests: measure shadow lengths of a stick at the same local time on the same date at different latitudes; observe ship disappearance over a sea horizon; follow Sun positions through a year to trace an analemma; or consult publicly available satellite and astronomical imagery—methods featured in science reporting and popular debunks (NASA; Gizmodo; IFLScience; earth-site) [5] [3] [8] [6].
Summary conclusion: authoritative reference sources and recent science reporting present multiple, independently reproducible lines of evidence that align with an oblate‑spheroid Earth; social scientists and journalists explain why flat‑Earth belief persists despite that evidence [1] [2] [10].