The Case for Open Inquiry into the Geocentric Model
One of the most ridiculed topics on social media is the concept of a flat Earth. Like many, I once dismissed it outright, convinced it was an absurd notion contradicting well-established facts. The globe model, heliocentrism, and our understanding of the universe seem indisputable, supported by centuries of scientific observation and evidence. Everything around us—planets, stars, and celestial mechanics—appears to point to a spherical Earth. To even entertain a contrary idea felt redundant and absurd.
For years, I avoided the topic entirely. It seemed like settled science, not worth revisiting. But through a series of unrelated circumstances, I encountered information that challenged this assumption in a way that piqued my curiosity. Against my initial skepticism, I decided to approach the subject with an open mind, stepping cautiously into what I once considered my “final rabbit hole.”
As I explored further, I was surprised to find a wealth of resources—books, historical accounts, and experiments—often conducted by skeptics aiming to disprove the flat Earth model, only to arrive at conclusions that supported it. Works like 200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball and 100 Proofs the Earth Is Not a Globe (1886) present intriguing arguments, while the Bedford Level experiment and modern laser tests over distances exceeding 12.9 kilometers consistently fail to demonstrate the Earth's curvature.
One of the top arguments in favor of a flat Earth perspective appeals directly to personal observation and visual evidence, which are intuitive and accessible. The horizon consistently appears perfectly flat across 360 degrees, whether observed from the ground, a plane, or even at high altitudes reached by weather balloons. This is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a geocentric flat Earth, as a globe with a circumference of 40,233.5 kilometers should show noticeable curvature, especially at higher altitudes. For example, at 32.2 kilometers high (a common altitude for weather balloons), the heliocentric model predicts a visible curve, yet amateur footage from such balloons, when filmed without distorting lenses, shows a horizon that remains stubbornly flat. This aligns with the flat Earth model, where the Earth is a stationary plane extending outward, and the horizon represents the limit of our visible range, not a curve.
Those who believe in a spherical Earth often claim they’ve witnessed the Earth’s curvature firsthand while flying in a commercial airplane at altitudes around 10,668 meters (about 10.6 kilometers). They argue that looking out the plane window reveals a gentle curve along the horizon, supporting the idea of a globe. However, this claim is easily debunked by examining the airplane windows themselves. Airplane windows are not flat; they are curved and act much like a fisheye lens on a camera, bending the view to create the illusion of curvature. This distortion exaggerates the horizon’s appearance, making it seem curved even if the actual horizon is flat.
In contrast, weather balloon footage, when captured with a standard, non-fisheye lens, consistently shows a flat horizon at much higher altitudes—often 32.2 kilometers or more—where the curvature should be far more pronounced if the Earth were a globe. For instance, if the Earth were a ball, the curvature drop over a 32.2-kilometer distance should be significant (about 81.1 meters using the 20.3 centimeters per kilometer squared approximation), yet these videos reveal no such drop. The globers’ reliance on distorted airplane views, coupled with high-altitude footage showing a flat horizon, reinforces the geocentric flat Earth model. The horizon’s flatness is a direct observation that contradicts the globe model and supports a plane Earth at the center of the universe.
Another strong argument for a flat Earth is water’s fundamental, observable property. Water always seeks its level state—it doesn’t curve when it settles, which aligns perfectly with everyday experience and challenges the idea of a curved Earth requiring gravity to hold water in place. The natural physics of water is to settle into a flat, level surface, as seen in lakes, oceans, and canals. If the Earth were a spinning globe, water would need to curve around the surface, requiring an immense force to hold it in place. For example, over 9.7 kilometers, the Earth’s surface should drop about 1.83 meters due to curvature (using the 20.3 centimeters per kilometer squared approximation), yet standing water remains perfectly level over such distances, as observed in experiments like the Bedford Level Experiment. This suggests the Earth is a flat plane.
A third compelling argument is the lack of perceptible motion from the Earth’s alleged rotation. If the Earth were spinning at approximately 1,609.34 km/h at the equator (as claimed in the heliocentric model), we should feel this motion or see its effects in everyday phenomena. However, the ground feels stationary, clouds and birds move freely without being flung eastward, and projectiles (e.g., bullets shot straight up) return to their starting point without being displaced by the Earth’s supposed rotation. This stillness supports a stationary, flat Earth at the center of the universe.
Another observable experience, resonating on a personal level, is the direct observation of celestial motion, which historically supported geocentric models (e.g., Ptolemy’s system). Daily observation shows the Sun and Moon moving across the sky in predictable patterns, rising in the east and setting in the west. In a geocentric flat Earth model, these bodies are smaller, closer, and revolve above the flat plane, circling around the North Pole (the center of the Earth). This simpler explanation matches what we see without requiring the Earth to spin or orbit the Sun, as in the heliocentric model. The Sun and Moon’s apparent circular paths fit a geocentric model where the Earth is the fixed center, avoiding the complex explanations of Earth’s rotation and orbit.
Expanding on celestial phenomena, the Sun’s appearance further supports its proximity. When the Sun is low on the horizon, its rays pierce through clouds at specific angles, creating crepuscular rays that appear to converge toward a point in the sky, as if the Sun were only about 4,828 kilometers above the Earth. In a geocentric flat Earth model, the Sun is local and close, casting light in a focused, spotlight-like manner. If the Sun were truly 149.67 million kilometers away, its rays would appear parallel due to the immense distance, not converging as we observe. The Sun’s ability to light up specific areas while leaving others in shadow (e.g., during a sunrise) further supports a localized Sun, inconsistent with a distant star illuminating the entire Earth uniformly.
The stars provide yet another celestial clue. Constellations like the Big Dipper and Orion have been recorded by ancient civilizations thousands of years ago and remain nearly identical today. On a flat Earth, the North Pole is the center of the plane, and the stars, embedded in a rotating firmament, circle around Polaris, which sits directly above it. This explains why constellations remain consistent across time and latitude, despite the heliocentric claim that Earth is hurtling through space at 106,216.4 km/h around the Sun while tilting on its axis. If the Earth were a spinning, orbiting globe, these stellar patterns should shift noticeably over time, yet they remain a reliable guide, supporting a stationary, flat Earth at the universe’s center.
As with the Sun and Moon, Polaris remains nearly stationary above the North Pole, with stars appearing to revolve around it in circular paths. On a spinning, orbiting globe, Polaris’s position should shift significantly over time due to Earth’s motion, yet it remains a dependable navigation marker, further supporting a geocentric flat Earth model.
Practical evidence also aligns with our perspective. In large-scale engineering projects, surveyors, engineers, and architects rarely, if ever, account for Earth’s curvature when constructing long canals, railways, or bridges. For example, the Suez Canal, stretching 160.9 kilometers, was built along a horizontal datum line without adjusting for curvature, which would require a drop of over 2,012 meters over that distance on a globe. Similarly, railroads and tunnels are laid flat over hundreds of kilometers without curvature adjustments. This suggests the Earth is flat, as a curved surface would require constant corrections. The apparent lack of adjustments aligns with a flat Earth model and challenges the globe model’s predictions.
Remarkably, books like 16 Emergency Airplane Landings That Prove the Earth Is Flat further challenge conventional assumptions. These detailed accounts describe flight paths that make little sense on a globe but align perfectly with a flat Earth map, such as an azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the North Pole. For example, an emergency landing route from Santiago, Chile, to Sydney, Australia, often takes a detour via Los Angeles—a path that appears circuitous on a globe but becomes a straight line on a flat Earth map. Another case involves a flight from Johannesburg to Perth, which takes an unexpectedly northern route over the Middle East, again fitting a flat Earth model where southern distances are shorter than on a globe. These real-world examples demonstrate the explanatory power of the flat Earth model.
Even NASA and the US Department of Defense seem to acknowledge this practicality. Their documents often reference a “flat, non-rotating plane” in technical calculations for flight and trajectory simulations. They assume a flat, stationary Earth because, over short distances, the effects of curvature and rotation are negligible, simplifying their models. While they claim this is just a convenience, it reveals that a flat Earth model works in practice, aligning with our observations and casting doubt on the necessity of their globe-based laws of nature.
Globers often counter with the claim that ships disappear over the horizon, proving curvature. However, this phenomenon is due to perspective and atmospheric effects, not a curved Earth. As a ship moves farther away, haze, refraction, and the vanishing point cause it to fade from view, but with a powerful enough telescope, the ship’s hull can often be brought back into sight—a fact documented by flat Earth researchers. This counters the curvature argument and supports a flat plane where objects disappear due to visual limits, not a drop in the Earth’s surface.
What stood out to me most was the difference in epistemological approaches: the heliocentric model heavily relies on theoretical interpretations and complex frameworks, while the geocentric perspective emphasizes direct observation and personal experimentation. The heliocentric model, while mathematically elegant, presents a framework that is virtually impossible for the average individual to independently prove. By contrast, the geocentric flat Earth perspective invites personal validation through everyday observations—whether it’s the flat horizon, the level water, or the fixed stars.
This debate also touches on deeper philosophical and spiritual questions about humanity’s place in the cosmos. The Bible, for example, offers descriptions of the Earth that align with the geocentric model. In Job 38:14, we read, “The Earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.” Such poetic imagery invites contemplation of a fixed, discernible Earth, shaped and designed with purpose. These ancient texts, while often dismissed in scientific discourse, resonate with many who question the prevailing heliocentric narrative.
Ultimately, this journey led me to conclude that breaking away from culturally imposed paradigms requires both intellectual independence and psychological resilience. It is not merely a question of science but of the courage to face ridicule and challenge the status quo. For those who have paid attention, recent years have marked a turnaround—nay, an acceleration—in the speed at which long-held beliefs are either revealed for their limited understanding or exposed as dogmas serving corrupt interests. It’s no wonder few people are willing to undertake this challenge, but for those who do, the evidence for alternative interpretations, such as the geocentric flat Earth model, becomes, at the very least, compelling enough to reconsider long-held beliefs.
My argument is simple: approach the geocentric versus heliocentric debate with an open mind, an independent drive, and a willingness to question authority. Ask yourself: Would you rather believe what someone else tells you, despite your personal experiences and observations? Or do you trust your own judgment and senses? If you follow the information to its logical conclusion without fear of social judgment, you may find yourself questioning the very foundation of what we are told is reality.
JS
Disclaimer: This essay was written with the help of ChatGPT and Grok 3. Both AI tools enthusiastically participated in the thought experiment of honing my arguments, while adhering to their programmed heliocentric understanding of our realm. In this way, they perhaps reflect the broader human tendency to hold fast to established paradigms, even in the face of compelling alternative perspectives.