Who Started the Flat Earth Nonsense (I Have My Theory)

What Do Flat Earthers Actually Believe?
Fact Quickie | 30 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnDzWQDt8e0

As a Geocentric, I have a feeling Flat Earth (apart from Hindus, where Vedic astronomy is non-globe Earth), is artificially supported to deflect attention from Geocentrism.

And to get people rebutting Geocentrism unefficiently boosting their essay or video by giving them a chance of rebutting Flat Earth very efficiently.

I

Ryan Trevett

@GuardianSoulkeeper

Harder to debunk than a flat earth but still easy. Even Bob "Mr. 15° per hour" Knodel accomplished that using a ring laser gyroscope.

And he was a flat earther!

I mean if you don't have tens of thousands of dollars of space-age technology to hand you can just casually observe man-made satellites passing over your head and ask yourself why, assuming the Earth is stationary, don't those satellites just trace the same path over the Earth's surface over and over.

Orbital planes and the whole concept of ya know...momentum aren't exactly well known for spontaneous rotation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GuardianSoulkeeper "why, assuming the Earth is stationary, don't those satellites just trace the same path over the Earth's surface over and over."

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not even sure you understand it.

If you meant Geostationary satellites, I've answered it like, they are stationary in relation to Earth, but moving in the surrounding Aether, like this is also the reason why a stone dropped at the equator doesn't fall 450 m further West by moving with the Aether, it was already moving through it.

If the point was different from Geostationary satellites, I didn't understand it.

Ryan Trevett

@hglundahl OK. Do you know what an orbital plane is?

In geometry, a plane is just a 2-dimensional surface that extends infinitely in two dimensions, defined within a 3d volume.

An orbital plane is simply a 2d plane on which an orbital path resides. This is because, in an ideal orbit (an object orbiting a point in space with no external influence) the orbital path only moves in two dimensions. This means the orbital path will stay the same and the object will just trace the same path over and over forever.

Now also consider the claim the Earth isn't moving. If an object in orbit is tracing the same path and the Earth isn't rotating, that means the man-made satellites we can see above our heads should be moving over the same parts of the Earth over and over.

Eg if I happen to be under the path of the ISS, I should be able to see it every 90 minutes or so every time it completes one orbital circuit.

But I don't. Nobody does. You see it once then have to wait several hours for the Earth to bring you back under its orbital path again.

Is that clearer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GuardianSoulkeeper Somewhat.

Tentatively, I would say, the Aether changes the orbital plane for the ISS. I presume I could add "so it fluctuates."

@GuardianSoulkeeper Or, "so it rotates around Earth"

Ryan Trevett

@hglundahl What Aether?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GuardianSoulkeeper The same one which Mitchelson Morley would have disproven if Earth had been moving + the Einsteinian "substance of space-time" or I'd settle for "substance of space".

Ryan Trevett

@hglundahl If the Aether is imparting sufficient force on man-made satellites to rotate their orbital planes at 15° per hour, how come it's having no impact on the rotation of the Earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GuardianSoulkeeper The Aether isn't imparting any force at all, it's just the space that's displaced around Earth.

The reason it doesn't make Earth rotate is, God keeps Earth still. Presumably only rotates part of the Aether, between Earth surface and above the Fix Stars.

II

Matuse

@Matuse

Geocentrism is only slightly less dumb than flat earth.

I answered

approximately:

Yeah, slightly, it can actually work and hasn't been refuted / cannot be refuted.

Matuse

@hglundahl It can't work and it's been refuted by Copernicus and Gallileo for more than 500 years.

[This was his (or her) second remark, the first and my response to both, have disappeared, and do NOT appear when I click "show all comments" ... but I could retrieve the first one from the feed, and insert another]

I answered

approximately:

Neither of them refuted a stationary Earth, if you meant they refuted the Ptolemaic system, true story, but that's not sufficient to refute a stationary Earth given there is the Tychonian system, which neither of them refuted.