[And the sun stood still]

This is a question to FEers who believe in the big bang theory. Now, we know that a sphere is the simplest form of matter, and so the big bang theory would have created spheres, but if you are a flat earther it must have used immense amounts of energy to create a flat earth planet, that doesn't really make sense. Are there any thoughts on this?

P.S. I am a Christian flat-earther.

[Dr David Thork]

Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.

[Lord Dave]

A sphere is far from simple.  It is not the simplest form of matter.  That doesn't even make sense.  Quarks are the simplest form of matter.  Or I suppose atoms if you wanna keep it in the atomic realm.


Secondly, disks are very common in space.  See rings, orbits, spiral galaxies, Dust belts..

[AATW]

The earth and celestial objects above a certain size are spheres because gravity pulls them into that shape, not because they’re the simplest shape.

[LiqwdE]

Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.

I think is a slight misconception when they say the universe is flat. They are speaking from a geometrical standpoint.

Example - on earth, if 2 people started on the equator and both started walker due north they will eventually meet at north pole. Now because the lines are not parallel neither round earth or flat earth are flat from a geometrical view point. They are both curved.

Space on the other hand is truelly flat and parallel lines will continue forever parallel (except when altered by space-time dilations). But we also know that space is 3 dimensional. So we dont know its shape. It could be a cube, a moebius strip, Klein bottles, etc..

There's an important distinction between geometry, the behavior of parallel lines, and topology, the way a space can get all twisted up. While the geometry of the universe is very well measured (again, it's flat), the topology is not.

I'm a Christian round earthers. But unlike others I'm not here to prove or disprove either theory but more or less to expand my knowledge of both. For all we know we are both wrong

[timterroo]

This is a question to FEers who believe in the big bang theory. Now, we know that a sphere is the simplest form of matter, and so the big bang theory would have created spheres, but if you are a flat earther it must have used immense amounts of energy to create a flat earth planet, that doesn't really make sense. Are there any thoughts on this?

P.S. I am a Christian flat-earther.

I'm under the assumption that flat earth and creationism go hand-and-hand. The whole big band theory includes mass getting pulled balls and orbiting each other, not into a dome-covered disk with a spot light circling it.

Edit: I should say, flat earth leads to a creationist mind-set. Not necessarily the other way around.

[Rushy]

This is a question to FEers who believe in the big bang theory. Now, we know that a sphere is the simplest form of matter, and so the big bang theory would have created spheres, but if you are a flat earther it must have used immense amounts of energy to create a flat earth planet, that doesn't really make sense. Are there any thoughts on this?

P.S. I am a Christian flat-earther.

I'm under the assumption that flat earth and creationism go hand-and-hand. The whole big band theory includes mass getting pulled balls and orbiting each other, not into a dome-covered disk with a spot light circling it.

Edit: I should say, flat earth leads to a creationist mind-set. Not necessarily the other way around.

The Big Bang Theory was actually developed by and popularized by a Roman Catholic, because he felt that it accurately fit into the Bible's description regarding the creation of the universe. His name is Georges Lemaître.

[Bobby Shafto]

The Big Bang Theory was actually developed by and popularized by a Roman Catholic, because he felt that it accurately fit into the Bible's description regarding the creation of the universe. His name is Georges Lemaître.

Lemaître was far from being a Creationist. He firmly held that science and religion were compatible but should be kept separate.

[QED]

Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.

Galaxies are flat? Really? Oh, you must mean spiral galaxies, which are disk-shaped. They form that way because they are spinning. When they stop spinning, usually through galaxy merger events, they become spherical in shape.

The spinning provides extra energy needed to keep the galaxy in a disk shape -- look up angular momentum. So, yes, it takes more energy for a galaxy to be "flat."

The Universe has a flat spacetime geometry on large scales. This is a different idea than the word "flat" you would associate with a pancake. You are committing the equivocation fallacy: a flat spacetime does not mean pancake-shaped. It is a comment about the metrics one computes. Effectively, it means that parallel lines will always stay parallel. This would not happen in closed or hyperbolic spacetimes.

Since gravity operates empirically as a inverse square law, without angular dependencies, the most energetically favorable form is a sphere, which is why most large objects become this shape. It would indeed take more energy to keep a large object in a pancake shape than a spherical shape. Just blow up a balloon. Why doesn't it form a pancake? You can squash it into a pancake, but this takes extra energy.

Hopefully, I will not have to explain this to you a million times

[Dr David Thork]

Galaxies are flat? Really?

Yes, really.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-eyes-galaxy-as-flat-as-a-pancake

Hopefully, I will not have to explain this to you a million times

You can try, but I will likely lose interest and stop reading your posts.

[AATW]

Galaxies are flat? Really?

Yes, really.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-eyes-galaxy-as-flat-as-a-pancake

That link even explains why they are flattened.
And it's interesting you're using a link from NASA, are they only lying when it comes to things which don't support your world view?

[Dr David Thork]

We can see entire galaxies from earth. We can't see the entire earth from earth.

[timterroo]

We can see entire galaxies from earth. We can't see the entire earth from earth.

I don't think you can rely on your vision of a galaxy as evidence of a flat galaxy any more than you can rely on images from nasa as evidence of a round earth. A giant globe from a million miles away would look flat from earth's perspective.

[AATW]

We can see entire galaxies from earth. We can't see the entire earth from earth.

Correct. But you can see the entire earth from space a small NASA and other space agencies around the world have.

[Tumeni]

We can see entire galaxies from earth. We can't see the entire earth from earth.

Correct. But you can see the entire earth from space a small NASA and other space agencies around the world have.

Well, sort of. You could see a Spherical Cap of up to 180 degrees approx., or almost one hemisphere, and the arc this covers will vary with distance;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap

So it's not quite the entire earth ... but up to one hemisphere of it, with clear space around about.
Misunderstanding of this is at the root of the FE "continents vary in size on the blue marbles" argument....

[QED]

Galaxies are flat? Really?

Yes, really.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-eyes-galaxy-as-flat-as-a-pancake

Hopefully, I will not have to explain this to you a million times

You can try, but I will likely lose interest and stop reading your posts.

I like your link! It explains why spiral galaxies are disk-shaped. And that explanation is the same one I gave you previously.

So in short, to summarize, "flat" galaxies maintain that shape because they have higher energy than spherical galaxies. That extra energy is the kinetic energy of their rotation.

Do you have any other questions about galaxies that I might be able to answer? I do study them, after all

[Mikefaith13]

This is a question to FEers who believe in the big bang theory. Now, we know that a sphere is the simplest form of matter, and so the big bang theory would have created spheres, but if you are a flat earther it must have used immense amounts of energy to create a flat earth planet, that doesn't really make sense. Are there any thoughts on this?

P.S. I am a Christian flat-earther.

why didnt they call earth a spericet or globeland its a planet every other word accociated with planet is a flat term my opinion is you cant be a flat earther and believe in the big bang tjats just the majic at work to confuse the major population

[Cartoon_JR]

Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.

The Galaxies are flat because they are spinning!!! But the "Flat Earth Theory" that the sun is spinning over the earth makes it stationary.

If the earth is stationary ( not spinning ) and is flat. then it is IMPOSSIBLE.

therefor the earth is a sphere and not a disk. You might say "if the earth is a sphere and spinning then why isn't it a disk? after all it is spinning!" Well that is waaaayyyy slower than a spinning galaxy.

[Cartoon_JR]

A sphere is far from simple.  It is not the simplest form of matter.  That doesn't even make sense.  Quarks are the simplest form of matter.  Or I suppose atoms if you wanna keep it in the atomic realm.


Secondly, disks are very common in space.  See rings, orbits, spiral galaxies, Dust belts..

Take a look at Suns and planets... Why aren't they flat???

It is because there dense enough to be a sphere. As the OP said sphere is the simplest for of matter.

Every object that has mass has a gravitational pull, and the easiest form for an object is a sphere. Because it can put an equal pull force on EVERY side

Explanation video ( I know it is based on a game but everything is shown is compared to real life )



SKIP TO 3:34 FOR THE EXPLANATION!

[timterroo]

Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.

The Galaxies are flat because they are spinning!!! But the "Flat Earth Theory" that the sun is spinning over the earth makes it stationary.

If the earth is stationary ( not spinning ) and is flat. then it is IMPOSSIBLE.

therefor the earth is a sphere and not a disk. You might say "if the earth is a sphere and spinning then why isn't it a disk? after all it is spinning!" Well that is waaaayyyy slower than a spinning galaxy.

The earth is actually slightly oblong due to its rotational force. This is consistent with the explanation of why galaxies are "flat".