WHY is the earth flat?

Love makes you all happy because of the effects of endorfins on the brain and body.
Ice cream is tasty because the sugar molecules activate certain pleasure centers of the brain.
It's fun to drive too fast because of adrenaline rush, and the (pre-wreck) confidence that also stimulates adrenaline and endorfins.

"Why is the earth flat" can be interpreted as a metaphysical question, or as another way of phrasing the question, "How do we know the earth is flat". Why is the earth flat? Because God thought that would be a good idea. If it were a spinning sphere, it would be obvious. I'm fairly sure the OP wants something deeper or more general. Otherwise the question would have been more in the vein of, "How do we know the earth is flat".

It's nice of you to agree with me sometimes. I know it must be painful.  But I think I may have distracted the thread. The OP was trying to understand how a flat earth was formed in the first place.

My answer should really be, that the notion that we understand everything is itself a fallacy. Round-earth theory basically says that there was a big bang, and everything is whirling, and in all that whirling a lot ends up round and spinning and still whirling, and here we are whirling.

It gives a bit of satisfaction to those who want to believe that everything is on auto-pilot. I think that God said, here's Earth. It's flat, and on pillars. It has a dome. Bob's your uncle. I'm all for "how", too, but really we have to start with "what". And the "what" seems to be that the earth is flat. I can't name a natural process by which it came to be. But the big bang itself has numerous problems, does it not?

Quote from: odes

It's nice of you to agree with me sometimes. I know it must be painful.  But I think I may have distracted the thread. The OP was trying to understand how a flat earth was formed in the first place.

Not painful at all. It has nothing to do with proving you wrong. I only address incorrect statements, not incorrect people.

Quote from: odes

My answer should really be, that the notion that we understand everything is itself a fallacy. Round-earth theory basically says that there was a big bang, and everything is whirling, and in all that whirling a lot ends up round and spinning and still whirling, and here we are whirling.

I cannot think of a single organization on Earth that claims to understand everything EXCEPT for some religions. You must understand, the idea of a round earth is not a theory. While that may have been true at a time when such thoughts were conjectured about these days it is confirmed. I understand that you disagree with those confirmations but that is for another thread. Other things you mention here are also not theories. It is observed that celestial objects are mostly round, spinning and whirling. It is also observationally apparent that the universe itself is expanding. All of these are observations. The "how" of science simply intends to explain what started these motions and the big bang is indeed a theory that seems like a very plausible explanation.

Quote from: odes

It gives a bit of satisfaction to those who want to believe that everything is on auto-pilot. I think that God said, here's Earth. It's flat, and on pillars. It has a dome. Bob's your uncle. I'm all for "how", too, but really we have to start with "what". And the "what" seems to be that the earth is flat. I can't name a natural process by which it came to be. But the big bang itself has numerous problems, does it not?

I'd attribute your accusations of auto-pilot to religious apologists. You shouldn't fit your world view into what it says in a book written 2000 years ago. It's much more pragmatic to just observe and do your own experiments and develop a world view based on that. "What" is a good question and the answer is dependent on the capabilities of the observer. 2000 years ago there wasn't much to work with but that has changed.

What are the problems with the big bang?

Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 04:39:02 AM

Quote from: odes

It's nice of you to agree with me sometimes. I know it must be painful.  But I think I may have distracted the thread. The OP was trying to understand how a flat earth was formed in the first place.

Not painful at all. It has nothing to do with proving you wrong. I only address incorrect statements, not incorrect people.

Quote from: odes

My answer should really be, that the notion that we understand everything is itself a fallacy. Round-earth theory basically says that there was a big bang, and everything is whirling, and in all that whirling a lot ends up round and spinning and still whirling, and here we are whirling.

I cannot think of a single organization on Earth that claims to understand everything EXCEPT for some religions. You must understand, the idea of a round earth is not a theory. While that may have been true at a time when such thoughts were conjectured about these days it is confirmed. I understand that you disagree with those confirmations but that is for another thread. Other things you mention here are also not theories. It is observed that celestial objects are mostly round, spinning and whirling. It is also observationally apparent that the universe itself is expanding. All of these are observations. The "how" of science simply intends to explain what started these motions and the big bang is indeed a theory that seems like a very plausible explanation.

Quote from: odes

It gives a bit of satisfaction to those who want to believe that everything is on auto-pilot. I think that God said, here's Earth. It's flat, and on pillars. It has a dome. Bob's your uncle. I'm all for "how", too, but really we have to start with "what". And the "what" seems to be that the earth is flat. I can't name a natural process by which it came to be. But the big bang itself has numerous problems, does it not?

I'd attribute your accusations of auto-pilot to religious apologists. You shouldn't fit your world view into what it says in a book written 2000 years ago. It's much more pragmatic to just observe and do your own experiments and develop a world view based on that. "What" is a good question and the answer is dependent on the capabilities of the observer. 2000 years ago there wasn't much to work with but that has changed.

What are the problems with the big bang?

One important correction is needed at this point:

Yes, the belief in a round Earth is a theory.  Using the scientific method and its ways of hypothesis testing to confirm claims of roundness must fail. There have been many books written claiming the Earth is round in one way or another. That does not solve the REer's dilemma of providing proof necessary to support claims of a round Earth.

What are the problems with the big bang?

Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 04:39:02 AM

What are the problems with the big bang?

I have no idea. I wasn't there. The only known observation is that its all expanding away from a center. That's not a problem.

Wouldn't it have been too loud? The bang itself would have been so loud that nothing could have formed.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 04:39:02 AM

Quote from: odes

It's nice of you to agree with me sometimes. I know it must be painful.  But I think I may have distracted the thread. The OP was trying to understand how a flat earth was formed in the first place.

Not painful at all. It has nothing to do with proving you wrong. I only address incorrect statements, not incorrect people.

Quote from: odes

My answer should really be, that the notion that we understand everything is itself a fallacy. Round-earth theory basically says that there was a big bang, and everything is whirling, and in all that whirling a lot ends up round and spinning and still whirling, and here we are whirling.

I cannot think of a single organization on Earth that claims to understand everything EXCEPT for some religions. You must understand, the idea of a round earth is not a theory. While that may have been true at a time when such thoughts were conjectured about these days it is confirmed. I understand that you disagree with those confirmations but that is for another thread. Other things you mention here are also not theories. It is observed that celestial objects are mostly round, spinning and whirling. It is also observationally apparent that the universe itself is expanding. All of these are observations. The "how" of science simply intends to explain what started these motions and the big bang is indeed a theory that seems like a very plausible explanation.

Quote from: odes

It gives a bit of satisfaction to those who want to believe that everything is on auto-pilot. I think that God said, here's Earth. It's flat, and on pillars. It has a dome. Bob's your uncle. I'm all for "how", too, but really we have to start with "what". And the "what" seems to be that the earth is flat. I can't name a natural process by which it came to be. But the big bang itself has numerous problems, does it not?

I'd attribute your accusations of auto-pilot to religious apologists. You shouldn't fit your world view into what it says in a book written 2000 years ago. It's much more pragmatic to just observe and do your own experiments and develop a world view based on that. "What" is a good question and the answer is dependent on the capabilities of the observer. 2000 years ago there wasn't much to work with but that has changed.

What are the problems with the big bang?

One important correction is needed at this point:

Yes, the belief in a round Earth is a theory.  Using the scientific method and its ways of hypothesis testing to confirm claims of roundness must fail. There have been many books written claiming the Earth is round in one way or another. That does not solve the REer's dilemma of providing proof necessary to support claims of a round Earth.

One important correction is needed at this point:

Yes, the belief in a round Earth is a theory.  Using the scientific method and its ways of hypothesis testing to confirm claims of roundness must fail. There have been many books written claiming the Earth is round in one way or another. That does not solve the REer's dilemma of providing proof necessary to support claims of a round Earth.

The big bang would have made everything liquid, and everything would have sorted out according to atomic weight.

Pyrolizard, please remember the low content rules.  Thanks, have a great day!

Pyrolizard,

I'm not sure exactly why I think that. It just seems to me that the big bang would have been an extremely heat-oriented event, and surely everything would have been liquid. Then, with the much-ballyhoed gravity, surely every material would have separated out according to its specific weight or something. So all we would see is blobs of this material, blobs of that material, etc. No mixing, no layers. Also the intense noise of the event would surely have meant that materials would have continually sorted and re-sorted out, and been content only with their own kind, with which they would enjoy a sympathetic vibration.

Pyrolizard,

I'm not sure exactly why I think that. It just seems to me that the big bang would have been an extremely heat-oriented event, and surely everything would have been liquid. Then, with the much-ballyhoed gravity, surely every material would have separated out according to its specific weight or something. So all we would see is blobs of this material, blobs of that material, etc. No mixing, no layers. Also the intense noise of the event would surely have meant that materials would have continually sorted and re-sorted out, and been content only with their own kind, with which they would enjoy a sympathetic vibration.

I'm with you that the Big Bang would have been unthinkably hot.  But being that hot, why wouldn't everything simply be gaseous?

I also have to ask, what would have caused a disc?  Is gravity working in a specific direction rather than between any massive particle?  Is another force at work?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 22, 2013, 11:15:13 AM

I'm with you that the Big Bang would have been unthinkably hot.  But being that hot, why wouldn't everything simply be gaseous?

I was thinking of that also. If everything became a gas, then in the vibration fields caused by the alleged bang, substances would have grouped together by kind, and we would just have blobs of this, and blobs of that. No mixing.

The big bang also assumes evolution, but evolution obviously is impossible, since there is no evidence for it. And please don't say 'the finch of the beak'. 

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 22, 2013, 11:15:13 AM

I also have to ask, what would have caused a disc?  Is gravity working in a specific direction rather than between any massive particle?  Is another force at work?

I don't believe in the big bang, so I don't need to explain how a disk formed out of the bang. But I suppose two things might have smashed together? If I really had to believe in the big bang, I might think of it that way.

I mentioned the big bang-o because round earthers like to believe that all the spinning and whirling they believe in is all connected with how everything got its start, and was subsequently formed. Mostly they consider evolution to be necessary after a big-bang, since within all that heat and vibration obviously there would be nothing like a carbon-based life form that needs a temperature from 0-50 C day to day. I suppose God could put some life forms down after the big-bango, though.

The heat and vibration of the big bang would certainly occur, it is simply a fantasy that there would be none of that. It may not be vibration in the medium we are expecting or familiar with, but it is inevitable, and it would have created sympathetic vibration patterns which would thwart mixing.

Quote from: jonnyopinion on September 06, 2013, 09:13:50 PM

I wonder if any FE-ers have a theory as to why the earth is flat?  I'm not talking about evidence for or against the idea of it being flat: I mean, how did it come to be flat?  What were the initial conditions in the formation of the universe, and of our solar system, such that the newly formed earth became flat and not spherical, like the rest of the planets?

(Assuming, I suppose, you believe the rest of the planets exist, or are spherical; and that the earth hasn't always existed; and so on).

Welcome to FES. I have answered this many times but I would gladly answer this for you. I am currently working on this thoery but it still needs some improvement: You see, I believe the Earth is the very base of the universe, created from cooling after the Big Bang, and the Universe is being expanded from our point. Since that Earth is the base and that everything is being expanded from the point of the Earth, the Earth itself is being pulled magnetically by its four corners (I believe that Earth is a bipolar disc enclosed by four corners, if you find the beleif rediculous, just think of it being pulled as a disc. I believe the four corners are blocked out by the sun as seen in photos from space), and it is because of this that gravity (yes, im an FE and I believe in gravity) does not have the Earth's mass crush itself into a sphere like the planets (Earth is not by IAU definition in this case, a planet)