What I've learned from a (pretty) close examination of "Flat Earth" theory.

Like many of us, I've sort of had "Flat Earth" (FE) theory cognizance forced on me. You can't spend much time on Youtube without running into these videos in your "recommended for you" list if you've ever shown any interest in nature, science, philosophy, cosmology, religion...you name it. I've immersed myself in the topic now for about six months, and while I am still far from finalized with regard to conclusions, I would like to share a few brief observations on how my thinking has evolved during that time.

(Naw...it's cool...but I don't buy it. Courtesy of livescience.com.)

The first thing I'd like to do is tip my hat to the Flat Earthers (or at least the honest ones who are not part of any kind of psyop.) The first thing I was struck with (and remain amazed by) is the depth and breadth of the arguments--even some really good arguments--that the best Flat Earther proponents are able to make in favor of their theory. There were times during the past six months that I was almost ready to ...well... what, I'm no sure. But it certainly has been far more of a challenge to reach firm conclusions than I would have guessed.

Of course, "Flat Earth" belief is really only part of a broader conspiratorial worldview, some of which I've embraced already for decades. In order to believe in FE, you must also believe that the Earth is the center of the universe (geocentrism), that NASA and all major world governments collude and lie as a matter of routine, that there is a physical "firmament" of some type, and that at least the Sun and Moon (of all celestial objects) are much, much closer than we've been told.

I ACCEPT SEVERAL OF THESE PREMISES to one degree or another.

(simple wikipedia.org.)

I can not, however, as of yet, accept that the Earth is "flat" at least to the degree that it would eliminate the possibility of it being spherical in shape, (or concave, which is a variant of FE to be fair.) I am currently able to consider geocentrism for a multiplicity of reasons, not the least of which is that I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and true words of the Creator.

I believe that a geocentric Earth answers most of the cosmological descriptors given in the Bible better than the heliocentric model. I have always believed, for example, that the Book of Revelations is being LITERAL when it says that the stars will fall to Earth (Rev. 6:13) and, of course, that requires that the stars be much, much, much smaller and less hot than we've been led to believe; and, it also strongly implies that they are much, much closer as well.

I've always believed the Bible when it discusses "the firmament" and I do believe there is some REAL and PHYSICAL barrier that would fit that description, although it need not be DENSE AND HARD, but could be electro-magnetic in nature, or of some other "softer" nature yet unknown. Whatever the case, I do believe it likely that we went to the Moon, because the Moon is eminently more "reachable" than we've ever before been led to believe and that it and the Sun and stars are in (or within) the firmament (Gen. 1:17 KJV.)

The best reason, and to me it is currently an irrefutable one, that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun (geocentrism) is the FACT that pilots NEVER adjust for the so-called "Coriolis Effect" when plotting course or when landing. I am willing to believe that the Earth is a globe and that it spins inside the firmament where the Sun, Moon and stars are fixed; OR, that we are on a stationary globe with the sun, moon and stars (fixed in their places in the firmament) all revolving, together, around us. However, I am no longer able to say for certain that we revolve around the Sun or that it is 93 million miles away. (Somehow Ezekiel's Wheel always suggests itself to my mind as a sort of microcosm of something else VERY important....)

IF we are rotating with nearby celestial items fixed and close, perhaps ''their wheel" is rotating too, and we are rotating conversely, at a much, much slower speed than we've been told (i.e a moving "wheel" within a moving "wheel.")

The Big Bang Theory is in direct opposition to Biblical cosmology, of course, and it rests COMPLETELY on the belief in an expanding universe and that Quasars and galaxies are totally different celestial phenomenon with Quasars being the most distant. I've never believe in "red shift" to the extent that it can solely and inerrantly predict distances, movement, or anything else of any relative importance to cosmology. Relatively recent discovers (by Arp and others) that galaxies and quasars are sometimes JOINED by webs of "substance" (call it "stars" if you like) and that their redshifts are drastically different even though in close proximity to one another destroys evolutionary physical cosmology.

The Michaelson-Morley Experiment, IMHO, did prove the Earth is stationary, and all of the efforts of modern cosmology since that time have been PRE-DIRECTED to explaining away that proof, especially the "relativity" and "special relativity" hokum of one Albert Einstein. We do not need an "ether" to convey light either if the light sources, as the Bible tells us are, in (or "within") the firmament, so that solves that conundrum.

(Courtesy of simple.wikipedia.org.)

So...my current working theory, to simplify and summarize, is that the best evidence seems to show that the Earth is a CLOSED SYSTEM within a firmament, probably globular, and that the celestial objects are very, very close indeed (and small) compared to what we've always been told. I do believe in rotation--probably of the firmament and the celestial objects, but possibly of the Earth beneath those then stationary objects. I no longer believe revolution is likely.

I believe we are the center of THIS CLOSED SYSTEM, of course, though if God has other closed systems like ours--or much bigger systems even like those described in evolutionary cosmology, we have no proof of any of that.

I welcome your constructive criticism...

Thanks!

P.S. I also think it possible that everything I am proposing is true and that the "Flat Earth" element out there is attempting to be superimpose FE upon a rational geocentrism in order to obfuscate and bring it into wider derision. This, of course, would be done by the same types of people who deride all things Biblical.