How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

One thing everybody can agree on is the earth is suspended in a medium called "space." One simple question for the FE's is why, if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape? Are there immense forces that squeezed all the matter into a flat object during it's formation? Was the "dark energy" that propels earth upwards now the same energy that caused earth to be flat? if so, why would it not flatten all the objects on earth right now due to it's obvious immense amount of force acting on the planet?

This is a very basic question I have not seen brought up and have not seen an explanation for and I have seen evidence firsthand that would support a round earth theory due to natural occurence. For instance, take a lava lamp, a device that is constantly taking matter and forming shapes that are suspended in water. What shape is the lava after it breaks off from the bottom? Sphere, just like earth. I for one have never, ever seen a flat circle or rectangle shape float to the top of my lamp.

if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape?

Why would it result in a spherical shape?  I think you're making a big assumption that natural forces can only form spherical shapes.  Certainly galaxies aren't all spherical.

This is a very basic question I have not seen brought up

Indicating that you haven't looked.

For instance, take a lava lamp, a device that is constantly taking matter and forming shapes that are suspended in water. What shape is the lava after it breaks off from the bottom? Sphere, just like earth. I for one have never, ever seen a flat circle or rectangle shape float to the top of my lamp.

Are you suggesting that perhaps the processes at work in a lava lamp are somehow like those that formed the Earth?

i.e., the Earth is a blob of heavy goo in a lighter fluid that, when heated, becomes less dense than that light fluid?  Sounds icky, and not at all like anything you have firsthand experience of.

-Erasmus

have you been to every galaxy to make sure they arnt spherical? if not then shut up!

have you been to every galaxy to make sure they arnt spherical? if not then shut up!

Are you daft?  Did I say that every galaxy was not spherical?  Man, devote more of your time to literacy.

have you seen a galaxy that wasnt spherical? if so then have you been there yourself to make sure? if not then shut up. i win.

have you seen a galaxy that wasnt spherical? if so then have you been there yourself to make sure?

Yes, I have seen galaxies, through telescopes, that appeared to me to be distinctly nonspherical.  While observing the galaxy, I was in a region of the universe that contained the galaxy, so yes, I guess you could say that I was there.

So, A for effort, but unfortunately you are still not a winner.  Honestly, your chances are not looking good.

Was the "dark energy" that propels earth upwards now the same energy that caused earth to be flat?

Possibly not. I'm assuming here that the Devil lives in hell under the Flat Earth.

If so, quite possibly this dark energy is Devil flatulence powering the FE up through space.

One thing everybody can agree on is the earth is suspended in a medium called "space." One simple question for the FE's is why, if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape? Are there immense forces that squeezed all the matter into a flat object during it's formation? Was the "dark energy" that propels earth upwards now the same energy that caused earth to be flat? if so, why would it not flatten all the objects on earth right now due to it's obvious immense amount of force acting on the planet?

The "force" that you are referring to is 1g. The term "immense" is relative, as it depends on the state of the material the force is working on. 1g would most certainly be enough to form a mass of liquid magma into a flat shape, but it is apparently not enough to flatten everything that exists right now. I think flat Earthers and round Earthers would be in agreement on this particular statement.

This is a very basic question I have not seen brought up and have not seen an explanation for and I have seen evidence firsthand that would support a round earth theory due to natural occurence. For instance, take a lava lamp, a device that is constantly taking matter and forming shapes that are suspended in water. What shape is the lava after it breaks off from the bottom? Sphere, just like earth. I for one have never, ever seen a flat circle or rectangle shape float to the top of my lamp.

So do you believe that the Earth is a sphere suspended in a liquid? If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges here.

It is very clear what he means. When some thing in nature is in a liquid state, and is suspended in a vacuum it forms into a round shape.
When the Solar System was created, a vast explotion sent peices of molten rock from our future sun flying out into space. Some of these rocks became the asteroid belt, some became our nine planets.
Now the momentum from the explotion, coupled with the gravity well generated by our sun, caused the rocks to clump together into a ball shape and voila! We have our round earth!

It is very clear what he means. When some thing in nature is in a liquid state, and is suspended in a vacuum it forms into a round shape.

Unless it is accelerated in a specific direction - which is what most flat Earthers are assuming to be the case for our Earth.

But Flat Earthers also don't agree with gravity, which is what causes matter to clump together, at the earth-size level anyway.

One thing everybody can agree on is the earth is suspended in a medium called "space." One simple question for the FE's is why, if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape? Are there immense forces that squeezed all the matter into a flat object during it's formation? Was the "dark energy" that propels earth upwards now the same energy that caused earth to be flat? if so, why would it not flatten all the objects on earth right now due to it's obvious immense amount of force acting on the planet?

This is a very basic question I have not seen brought up and have not seen an explanation for and I have seen evidence firsthand that would support a round earth theory due to natural occurence. For instance, take a lava lamp, a device that is constantly taking matter and forming shapes that are suspended in water. What shape is the lava after it breaks off from the bottom? Sphere, just like earth. I for one have never, ever seen a flat circle or rectangle shape float to the top of my lamp.

Ever watch someone make a pizza crust?  A little spin is all it takes.

Now the momentum from the explotion, coupled with the gravity well generated by our sun, caused the rocks to clump together into a ball shape and voila! We have our round earth!

Then why isn't the solar system itself a ball?  I.e. why don't some planets orbit in arbitrarily inclined planes to the Earth's orbital plane?  Surely the explosion sent material in all directions.

The fact that your solar system itself is disclike is an indication that it is logically possible for dispersed matter to coalesce into shapes other than spheres.  Why can it not be that the same mechanism that caused the solar system and galaxy to be discs also caused the Earth to be a disc?

-Erasmus

Holy flying crap you're a sped. Our galaxy has been flung out from a centre point (big bang theory) and now its in a spinning motion.  if you take a big wad of goo, say GAK or something similar, even the snot from your running nose and fling it out, it will spin outwards, forming a disklike shape. galaxies have inertia

Our galaxy ... [is] in a spinning motion.  if you take a big wad of goo ... and fling it out, it will spin outwards, forming a disklike shape. galaxies have inertia ;)

Is the Earth not spinning?  Does the Earth not have inertia?

IClimbedTheIceWall wrote:
if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape?


Why would it result in a spherical shape? I think you're making a big assumption that natural forces can only form spherical shapes. Certainly galaxies aren't all spherical.

the pull of gravity would eventualy form it into a spherical shape

Quote from: "bhukka"

have you seen a galaxy that wasnt spherical? if so then have you been there yourself to make sure?

Yes, I have seen galaxies, through telescopes, that appeared to me to be distinctly nonspherical.  While observing the galaxy, I was in a region of the universe that contained the galaxy, so yes, I guess you could say that I was there.

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Earth is flat.

Actually, the light from the Sun does not light the ENTIRE galaxy.

Read the post again. I never stated the Sun lit up an entire galaxy, I said the "galaxy" was the way his eye perceives light, and that there is in fact no other galaxy.

Is my statement factual? No. But you can't argue it.

Read the post again. I never stated the Sun lit up an entire galaxy, I said the "galaxy" was the way his eye perceives light, and that there is in fact no other galaxy.

Is my statement factual? No. But you can't argue it.

What?  You need to read you post again.  Here I'll help:

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

You say that the galaxy he sees is just the light emitted from the sun.  This implies that the Sun lights up the entire galaxy.  And what do you mean there is in fact no other galaxy?

Read the post again. I never stated the Sun lit up an entire galaxy, I said the "galaxy" was the way his eye perceives light, and that there is in fact no other galaxy.

Is my statement factual? No. But you can't argue it.

Sure thing.

What's your point?

Nothing that has relevance to what's already been said. It was a good point though, wasn't it? Don't even answer that - I know it was.

I remember what I was saying now. Erasmus really wasn't looking at a galaxy through a telescope. How could he, when there are no other galaxies?

Quote from: "Welbourne"

Read the post again. I never stated the Sun lit up an entire galaxy, I said the "galaxy" was the way his eye perceives light, and that there is in fact no other galaxy.

Is my statement factual? No. But you can't argue it.

What?  You need to read you post again.  Here I'll help:

Quote

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

You say that the galaxy he sees is just the light emitted from the sun.  This implies that the Sun lights up the entire galaxy.  And what do you mean there is in fact no other galaxy?

In the hypothetic situation I was describing, he wasn't seeing a galaxy. It was instead an optical illusion provided by light emitting from the Sun, glaring off of the telescope. Which part of that stated that the Sun lights up an entire galaxy? Seriously. Point it out. Go ahead.

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

This right here.

Quote

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

This right here.

Good try Welbourne, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" is really just a 2d pictorial put up by god to entertain us.
-ujb.

Quote

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

This right here.

Oh, that's probably why I quoted the word "galaxy," to emphasize that the "galaxy" Erasmus was viewing wasn't actually a "galaxy." Congratulations.

Say what you mean, don't make us guess at what you meant...It just makes you look stupid.

Say what you mean, don't make us guess at what you meant...It just makes you look stupid.

You're the only person who had any trouble knowing exactly what I was talking about. Making myself look stupid is something I'm far from doing. This is the point in an argument where you insult me because, well, you can't argue.

If you want to make an educated point, I would be happy to 'argue' with you.  However, I don't consider 'The sun lights the galaxy' to be a educated point.

If you want to make an educated point, I would be happy to 'argue' with you.  However, I don't consider 'The sun lights the galaxy' to be a educated point.

You defy the possibility that maybe there isn't anything beyond our Sun and Moon, and that any other body we see suspended in space is nothing more than our Sun's light affecting what we really view? Much like how a rainbow isn't physical. You can't walk to the end of a rainbow, because a rainbow is strictly light passing through a certain spectrum of color.

How is this any less educated then saying that the Earth is flat?

I for one believe that there's much more in the universe beyond our planet, moon, and Sun. But until someone can physically step foot anywhere, you can't prove it.