Flat Universe

Let me first start off by saying I'm a Round Earth person and believe that the idea of a flat earth is completely laughable; however, I did want to make this post. I was watching the History Channel the other day and they were discussing the shape of the Universe. If I understood them correctly, according to the WMAP project, NASA can tell with a margin of error of 2% that the universe is indeed flat. I was wondering how this claim affects the FE theory as far helping with their argument that the world is indeed flat.
Here is a link to the NASA site with some basic info on the project.  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

It has nothing to do with the FE theory, as flat used in the context of the geometry of the universe sort of means something different. For the universe to be described as flat, triangles must, even when extended out for millions of light years, only have internal angles that add up to 180 degrees. If the universe is negatively curved then it is hyperbolic, meaning that straight lines end up diverging and getting farther apart (but on scales nowhere near small enough to have relevance at the earth's scale). If the universe has positive curvature then straight parallel lines will eventually curve in on each other and intersect. This kind of curvature is more general though than the shapes we associate with the earth and makes claims on longer scales than earth's. The current theory is that curvature is determined by the average density of the universe (more massive universes of the same size ought to have more curvature).

Let me first start off by saying I'm a Round Earth person and believe that the idea of a flat earth is completely laughable; however, I did want to make this post. I was watching the History Channel the other day and they were discussing the shape of the Universe. If I understood them correctly, according to the WMAP project, NASA can tell with a margin of error of 2% that the universe is indeed flat. I was wondering how this claim affects the FE theory as far helping with their argument that the world is indeed flat.
Here is a link to the NASA site with some basic info on the project.  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Well, even in RE the galaxy in which we live is believed to be flat, so it's already been proven by example that the notion that large astronomical constructs can only form in a spherical shape is fallacious.  Thus I think this would do little to support FET since it only repeats what we already know.

Well, even in RE the galaxy in which we live is believed to be flat, so it's already been proven by example that the notion that large astronomical constructs can only form in a spherical shape is fallacious. 

Sure, the Milky Way can be flat because it rotates very fast. If I understand correctly, this is not the case for the FE?

Quote from: Codewarrior on July 30, 2010, 12:20:22 PM

Let me first start off by saying I'm a Round Earth person and believe that the idea of a flat earth is completely laughable; however, I did want to make this post. I was watching the History Channel the other day and they were discussing the shape of the Universe. If I understood them correctly, according to the WMAP project, NASA can tell with a margin of error of 2% that the universe is indeed flat. I was wondering how this claim affects the FE theory as far helping with their argument that the world is indeed flat.
Here is a link to the NASA site with some basic info on the project.  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Well, even in RE the galaxy in which we live is believed to be flat, so it's already been proven by example that the notion that large astronomical constructs can only form in a spherical shape is fallacious.  Thus I think this would do little to support FET since it only repeats what we already know.

No, that's because you changed the word to large astronomical "constructs." The Milky Way is not a solid object, though.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 30, 2010, 05:33:52 PM

Quote from: Codewarrior on July 30, 2010, 12:20:22 PM

Let me first start off by saying I'm a Round Earth person and believe that the idea of a flat earth is completely laughable; however, I did want to make this post. I was watching the History Channel the other day and they were discussing the shape of the Universe. If I understood them correctly, according to the WMAP project, NASA can tell with a margin of error of 2% that the universe is indeed flat. I was wondering how this claim affects the FE theory as far helping with their argument that the world is indeed flat.
Here is a link to the NASA site with some basic info on the project.  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Well, even in RE the galaxy in which we live is believed to be flat, so it's already been proven by example that the notion that large astronomical constructs can only form in a spherical shape is fallacious.  Thus I think this would do little to support FET since it only repeats what we already know.

No, that's because you changed the word to large astronomical "constructs." The Milky Way is not a solid object, though.

The earth is also not a solid object.

Okay well it's partly liquid too, but it's basically condensed matter which is not like the Milky Way which is mostly vacuum.

Let me first start off by saying I'm a Round Earth person and believe that the idea of a flat earth is completely laughable; however, I did want to make this post. I was watching the History Channel the other day and they were discussing the shape of the Universe. If I understood them correctly, according to the WMAP project, NASA can tell with a margin of error of 2% that the universe is indeed flat. I was wondering how this claim affects the FE theory as far helping with their argument that the world is indeed flat.
Here is a link to the NASA site with some basic info on the project.  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

In my version of FE the universe is tubular

Well, even in RE the galaxy in which we live is believed to be flat, so it's already been proven by example that the notion that large astronomical constructs can only form in a spherical shape is fallacious.

You need to believe in gravity first.