“Flat Earth” refers to a cluster of claims that Earth is not a globe (an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid in geodesy terms) but a flat plane or disk, often paired with allegations that mainstream science, schools, and space agencies are misleading the public. This overview examines the Flat Earth claim: what supporters typically assert, where the modern movement came from, what is documented versus inferred, and why it spread—especially online.
This article is for informational and analytical purposes and does not constitute legal, medical, investment, or purchasing advice.
What the claim says
There is no single “Flat Earth” model accepted by all believers, but modern Flat Earth claim-sets commonly include some combination of the following elements:
-
Earth is flat, not a globe. The proposed shape is often described as a disk centered on the North Pole, with Antarctica interpreted as an “ice wall” around the perimeter. (This specific framing is frequently attributed to 19th-century “zetetic” writings that influenced later communities.)
-
What we see (horizons, long-distance views) is said to match a flat surface better than a curved one. Many arguments emphasize everyday perception (the horizon looks flat) and reinterpret optical effects (perspective, refraction) to explain ships and objects “disappearing” at distance.
-
Mainstream astronomy and space imagery are claimed to be deceptive or staged. In many Flat Earth narratives, photographs from space and satellite-based observations are framed as manipulated or misrepresented, and institutional trust is treated as a core issue rather than a technical detail.
-
Alternative cosmologies are proposed. Some versions place the Sun and Moon relatively close above the disk; others incorporate religious arguments; and some blend with other conspiratorial themes.
Because Flat Earth is a claim-cluster rather than a single testable statement, any evaluation has to separate (a) the documented history and sociology of the belief from (b) the physical-science assertions about Earth’s shape.
Where it came from and why it spread
Documented history shows that modern Flat Earth belief (as a recognizable movement) has roots in 19th-century Britain. Samuel Rowbotham (writing under the name “Parallax”) published Zetetic Astronomy in 1849 and later expanded it into a book arguing “Earth not a globe,” using a method he called “zetetic astronomy.”
After Rowbotham’s era, organized promotion continued through groups such as the Universal Zetetic Society (founded in 1893 by Lady Elizabeth Blount, according to historical summaries of the movement).
In the mid-20th century, the movement reappeared in a more explicitly “society” form. Samuel Shenton founded the International Flat Earth Research Society in 1956 in Dover, England (commonly referred to as the Flat Earth Society in popular accounts).
In the 2010s, Flat Earth content became especially visible in the “Internet era,” where social platforms made it easy to publish persuasive videos and connect believers into communities. A peer-reviewed analysis of Flat Earth discourse identifies YouTube as a key amplifier, describing it as a central venue for spreading and iterating Flat Earth arguments.
Why it spread is multi-factorial, but evidence-backed explanations focus less on “secret proof” and more on platform dynamics and human factors: algorithmic attention incentives, stigma/identity dynamics, community belonging, distrust of institutions, and the ease of packaging technical misunderstandings into compelling narratives. The YouTube-focused research specifically argues the phenomenon reflects a fusion of influences (e.g., conspiratorial framing, documentary styles, viral video tactics) that are distinctive to the platform ecosystem.
What is documented vs what is inferred
To keep the analysis evidence-focused, it helps to separate what we can document from what is merely asserted.
Documented / verifiable
-
Flat Earth is a real, organized set of beliefs with a traceable modern history. Key historical nodes (Rowbotham’s writings; later societies; Shenton’s 1956 group) are consistently described in historical summaries of the movement.
-
Contemporary Flat Earth discourse is measurably present online and heavily video-driven. Academic work analyzing the “Flat Earth phenomenon on YouTube” documents thousands of videos and highlights YouTube’s importance in promoting and evolving the discourse.
-
Earth’s shape is modeled and measured as a near-ellipsoid (oblate spheroid) with further irregularities described by the geoid. U.S. government science agencies explain that Earth is not a perfect sphere, and that precise work uses an ellipsoid and geoid concepts to represent Earth’s real shape and gravity field.
-
There is a long record of observational and photographic evidence for Earth’s curvature. NASA’s historical overview describes indirect evidence known long before spaceflight (e.g., lunar eclipse shadows, classical measurements) and then the later arrival of photographic perspectives from high altitude and space.
Plausible but unproven (or not directly testable as stated)
-
“A coordinated global deception explains why most institutions teach a globe Earth.” This is typically framed as a motive/coordination claim across many independent institutions (education systems, surveying, navigation, aerospace, etc.). Such claims are usually not supported with verifiable, cross-institution documentation; they are often presented as inference from distrust rather than evidence.
Contradicted or unsupported by mainstream measurement frameworks
-
“Earth is flat in the physical, geometric sense relevant to navigation, geodesy, and spaceflight.” Government geodesy sources describe Earth with ellipsoid/geoid models precisely because measurements of gravity, sea level, and coordinates require a curved reference surface, not a plane.
-
“Space-based views are categorically fake.” As a universal claim, this conflicts with the existence of many independent streams of space imagery and Earth-observation outputs. While images can be misunderstood or selectively edited, treating all of them as fabrication requires additional, specific, verifiable evidence beyond the claim itself. (NASA’s historical context describes the development of Earth imagery over time.)
Common misunderstandings
Many Flat Earth arguments become persuasive because they remix real concepts (like the geoid, refraction, or camera lenses) into incorrect conclusions. Common misunderstandings include:
-
“If Earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it could be flat.” This is a category error. Government geodesy explanations emphasize that Earth departs from a sphere in subtle, measurable ways (ellipsoid/geoid irregularities), not that it becomes a plane. The geoid is an undulating equipotential surface related to gravity and mean sea level, not “proof of flatness.”
-
“The horizon looks flat, therefore Earth is flat.” Visual perception at human scale is not a precise curvature measurement tool, and atmospheric conditions can affect long-distance visibility. Historically, curvature arguments rely on systematic observation, geometry, and high-altitude/space perspectives rather than casual perception alone.
-
“Perspective alone explains objects disappearing over distance.” Perspective affects apparent size, but many classical debates turned on careful experimental setup and the role of refraction; historical accounts note repeated experiments and disputes about proper controls (which is exactly why “looks like” arguments are weak without measurement).
-
“If a community can point to anomalies, the whole globe model fails.” Real-world science models tolerate anomalies and measurement error; geodesy explicitly uses refined models (ellipsoid + geoid) because Earth is irregular. Treating any single confusing video or photo as a decisive refutation is not how robust measurement frameworks are evaluated.
Evidence score (and what it means)
Evidence score: 15/100
-
The Flat Earth claim conflicts with well-documented geodesy frameworks that describe Earth using ellipsoid and geoid models for practical measurement and mapping.
-
There is extensive historical and modern observation history consistent with a round Earth, including pre-spaceflight inference and later photographic perspectives.
-
What is strongly documented is the movement’s existence and spread (especially online), not a reproducible body of measurements supporting a flat-world geometry.
-
Many Flat Earth variants rely on broad coordination/deception assumptions that are difficult to verify and are typically asserted rather than demonstrated with primary documentation.
Evidence score is not probability:
The score reflects how strong the documentation is, not how likely the claim is to be true.
What we still don’t know
Even when the physical-science claims are weakly supported, there are genuine open questions on the social side that are hard to answer conclusively:
-
How many people are sincere believers versus casual consumers of the content? Online engagement metrics do not cleanly measure belief.
-
Which platform mechanisms matter most? Research highlights YouTube’s importance, but the relative contribution of recommendation systems, influencer networks, and cross-platform migration varies across time and communities.
-
Which motivations dominate? Some participants emphasize religion, others anti-elitism, identity, contrarianism, or entertainment/trolling; these can overlap and shift.
FAQ
What is flat Earth (Flat Earth) supposed to mean?
In most modern usage, Flat Earth means the claim that Earth is a flat plane or disk rather than a globe. Many versions add claims that mainstream institutions conceal this, and that common astronomical explanations are wrong.
Where did Flat Earth claims originate?
Modern Flat Earth belief is commonly traced to 19th-century “zetetic” writings by Samuel Rowbotham (1849 pamphlet Zetetic Astronomy) and later organizations that promoted similar ideas; a major mid-20th-century revival point was the Flat Earth Society founded by Samuel Shenton in 1956.
Why did Flat Earth spread so widely online?
Peer-reviewed analysis of Flat Earth discourse argues YouTube is especially important in promoting and evolving the arguments, with the phenomenon shaped by platform-specific influences such as viral video dynamics and the blending of documentary styles with conspiratorial framing.
Does the geoid mean Earth isn’t round?
No. Government science explanations describe the geoid as an irregular mean-sea-level equipotential surface used for precise elevation and gravity-related measurements. They also state Earth is commonly approximated as an ellipsoid/oblate spheroid for coordinate work, with real-world irregularities layered on top—not as a flat plane.
What kind of evidence would meaningfully change the assessment of Flat Earth claims?
In principle, a coherent, predictive, reproducible measurement framework that outperforms ellipsoid/geoid-based geodesy—across surveying, navigation, and global measurement—would matter. In practice, current public explanations from geodesy authorities and the long record of observations are already aligned with a non-flat Earth model.
