4 Most Controversial Claims In The Flat Earth Theory | Unveiled

4 Most Controversial Claims in the Flat Earth Theory

One of the first things we’re taught in elementary school geography class is that Earth is a globe. And most of us go through our lives without ever severely doubting this assertion. Due to the amount of scientific and observational evidence in favour of a round Earth, it generally goes unchallenged as an obvious fact rather than a debatable claim. There are, however, some who take issue with the idea, and we’ve seen over the years how flat Earthers can have some pretty interesting, alternate views.

So, this is Unveiled, and today we’re exploring the four most controversial claims in the flat Earth theory.

It's perhaps not difficult to see why so many people scoff at fierce supporters of the flat Earth theory. There are, after all, so many easily observable aspects of Earth, and of how our planet relates to the sky above us, that fit perfectly with Earth being round - and not flat. For example, one often-cited, entry level counterargument says that if the Earth is flat, then every region of it should always either be facing towards the sun or away from it at the same time. It should be night-time or daytime everywhere, all at once. Of course we know, however, that different regions of the planet experience night and day at different hours, which is why we created different time zones. Similarly, the phenomenon of the changing of the seasons can be explained by the fact that the different regions of Earth experience a greater amount of daylight during different times of the year, as its spherical form rotates around its axis and simultaneously orbits around the sun… but those same seasons that we all know and understand seemingly can’t be explained by a stationary flat Earth that’s forever planted below the sun.

As it turns out, though, flat Earthers disagree and have pitched an alternative explanation for the phenomenon. Our first most controversial claim, then, is that we still have day, night, and the changing seasons because the sun is just really, really small. That shining object in our sky is now not a gargantuan star several hundred thousand miles in diameter and almost a hundred million miles away from us, but rather - according to flat Earth theory - it’s much smaller (at around thirty-two miles across, at the lowest estimate) and it sits only about three thousand miles away. Then, this comparatively tiny version of the sun moves in a circular fashion, yes, but across the face of flat Earth, lighting up different regions at different times. It’s an idea that does tend to struggle under further scrutiny, though, with one major flaw being that scientists have shown how light would have to bend in an impossible way, for it to work. And it would never dip below the horizon, either… despite our seeing every day that it does invariably do that.

Moving on to today’s second most controversial flat Earth claim, though, and it concerns the constellations. The standard, scientific explanation for why the constellations appear to move across the night sky is again that Earth spins on its axis, exposing us to different regions of the sky at different times. The flat Earth explanation, on the other hand, bears some similarity to the previous small sun example. In the flat Earth model, Polaris, the north star, sits directly above the centre of Earth, and the rest of the stars and constellations rotate in a circular fashion above the flat Earth. As it turns out, all you really need to do to severely challenge and/or disprove this part of the theory is… fly to Australia. Because, if you were to do so, and you looked up at the sky, you’d notice that you’re unable to see Polaris at all. It’s not just in a different position, which is what should be the case in most iterations of flat Earth… it isn’t there at all thanks to how the sky changes around Earth as a globe.

And so, swiftly on to the third most controversial flat Earth claim; that we live either in a kind of snow globe or that we’re surrounded by an ice wall. The initial problem here is the oceans… because if Earth really is one giant slab (as per flat Earth theory), then wouldn’t the water in the oceans slowly drain away as it falls off the ends of Earth? This isn’t happening, so what the theory requires is a big barrier. Something so huge that it can surround the entire perimeter of flat Earth, to prevent the oceans from spilling over (and anything else from falling off). The most popular suggestion as to what this barrier could be is that Earth is enclosed by a giant ice wall, found if you travel far enough into Antarctica. A glass snow globe model has been put forward, too, although it has fewer supporters (even within the flat Earth community).

The first and most obvious problem with this particular aspect of flat Earth theory (and it’s probably the most common counterargument of all) is… why has nobody ever seen this barrier? It would have to be truly massive, and therefore very difficult to hide from the public - even if it were in the icy wilderness of Antarctica. Wouldn’t there be some photographic evidence of this immense structure by now? And, in this instance, a recent group of adamant flat Earth theorists did very little to help their case when, back in 2020, they planned to sail to Antarctica to uncover the wall. But that’s really the last the world heard of their venture, with reports that it was quietly called off for reasons unknown.

But, finally, the fourth most controversial claim in flat Earth theory is really a more general view, as flat Earthers must - for the most part - insist that all the photographic evidence of a round Earth (taken by NASA and other space agencies, over the years) is completely fabricated. If you were to drop by NASA’s website right now, you can take in an endless stream of satellite pictures that, among other things, show Earth in all its spherical glory. Even away from NASA and the like, there are endless articles and studies to reveal how, say, even the ancient Greeks believed the Earth to be round based on mathematical calculations. Then, across the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and thanks to various space expeditions, we’ve steadily gained more and more insight. A better quality and higher quantity of photographs showing Earth as round. And generally, more and more data to support round Earth, to the point that it’s never really doubted by the majority.

The next question, then, might be: what would NASA’s motivation be for faking all of that? But flat Earth theory seemingly carries at its heart a strong distrust of NASA (and others like it). And maybe there is good reason for an appropriate amount of hesitation to accept authority. After all, throughout history, we’ve seen that many powerful groups have eventually been shown to be corrupt. But there are also groups that truly act in the genuine interest of truth and well-being. And with this in mind, any distrust of authority should really be tempered with the understanding that powerful groups are ultimately necessary to maintain a peaceful, civil society and prevent anarchy. Space agencies, for example, have a vital role to play in discovering what lies beyond Earth… but, in so doing, they’ve propelled our understanding of Earth to higher and higher levels. So much so that the Earth being round is now one of the most basic (and majority accepted) facts out there.

There’s some argument that flat Earth theory is tied up with religious claims, as well. For example, were you to view some parts of the Bible as a literal description of the world we live in, then you could well come away with the belief that Earth is flat. And, of course, we’ve seen over the most recent decades and centuries of human history how science and religion have so often been pitted against each other, with supporters of both choosing their side. In some cases, this results in an individual rejecting science, and perhaps the flat Earth distrust of NASA is just another example of that. But, regardless, if we consider just how large-scale a coverup this would need to be - involving not just NASA but all other space agencies, the vast majority of all other scientists, teachers, media companies, and more - then we begin to see just how controversial this flat Earth claim really is. It essentially tells us to trust no one… apart from flat Earth theorists, of course!

Ultimately, the truth does have a way of coming out. So, if the Earth is flat, then one day the globeheads of the world (as flat Earth theorists sometimes label us) will be very humbled. But, until that day comes (or more likely never does), we can happily go on learning more about this spinning ball we call home and the universe it inhabits. And those are four of the most controversial claims in the flat Earth theory.