What If the Earth Was Flat?

Earth appears as a flattened disk against the backdrop of space.
Gravity? What gravity? (Image credit: Shutterstock)

The Earth is a sphere. This is a simple fact that humans have known for thousands of years; it was incontrovertibly confirmed as soon as the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik 1 satellite in 1957 and it went … you know ... around the globe. 

Nevertheless, a small but vocal group of people who insist that the world is flat — so-called flat-Earthers — have emerged online in recent years, and they seem to be sowing doubt about this most basic aspect of reality. Many flat-Earthers put a great deal of effort into concocting alternative explanations for why the world behaves as if it's round when it's actually flat — even though a spherical Earth clearly fits the observations humans have made about the planet over the last few millennia.  

However, if Earth, somehow, were truly flat, it would not behave much like the planet we know today. In fact, humanity (and everything else) would be very, very dead. 

Related: Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?

To shape a cosmic body into a disk (rather than a sphere), you've got to spin it very fast, says David Stevenson, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena, California. This would, unfortunately, destroy the planet by tearing it into tiny particles. In the 1850s, astronomer James Clerk Maxwell showed mathematically that a solid, disk-like shape isn't a stable configuration in the cosmos, in work he conducted regarding Saturn's rings. Maxwell's research predicted that Saturn's rings would be made of lots of small, unconnected particles; he turned out to be right. His math also explains why there are no planet-size disks floating around the galaxy.

To flatten Earth without spinning it very rapidly, you'd need magic, or perhaps a galactic panini press. At any rate, a stamped-flat Earth wouldn't last for long. Within a few hours, the force of gravity would press the planet back into a spheroid. Gravity pulls equally from all sides, which explains why planets are spheres (or nearly so – depending on the speed of a planet's rotation, those forces may work against gravity to create a bit of a bulge at the equator). A stable, solid disk-like Earth just isn’t possible under the actual conditions of gravity, as Maxwell’s math showed. 

And once you get rid of gravity, everything about our planet rapidly stops making sense. 

The atmosphere? Gone, because it's held to the planet by gravity. Tides? Gone. They're caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, which tugs on the oceans and causes them to subtly bulge out as it swings by. 

The moon itself? Also gone, since every explanation of the moon's existence involves gravity. In the most widely accepted scenario, the moon was created when a giant, planet-size body crashed into the early Earth; debris from the crash was captured by Earth's gravity. Another scenario suggests that the moon formed at the same time as Earth did (again, thanks to gravity). Or, Earth's formidable gravity attracted and snagged the traveling hunk of space rock as it went hurtling by. 

Simple calculations

Gravity is also responsible for Earth's layered structure, with the densest materials sinking to the core, lighter materials making up the mantle and the lightest materials forming the crust. Without this layered structure, the planet would behave a lot differently. Earth's liquid outer core, for example, acts as a giant, dynamic magnet, which creates the planet's magnetic field. The magnetic field helps protect the planet's atmosphere from the stripping effect of the solar wind, which scraped away Mars' atmosphere after that planet's magnetic field faltered 4 billion years ago. 

If the Earth were flat, plate tectonics — the movement of rigid plates that make up the planet's crust — wouldn't work either, says James Davis, a geophysicist at the Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. 

"When you do the calculations, just simple calculations like, 'If this plate is moving this much and that plate is moving that much,' you have to do it on a sphere," he told Live Science. "You don't get the right answer [the answer that matches real-world observations] if you assume it's a plane." 

Related: 8 Times Flat-Earthers Tried to Challenge Science (and Failed)

Flat-Earthers spin different explanations for how all these observations could be possible on a flat planet. The problem, Davis says, is that these explanations don't have any basis in mathematics or physical reality. When Maxwell predicted in the 1850s that Saturn's rings were made of lots of small particles, he did so by applying general knowledge of how gravity and rotational forces work. His essay on the subject, in fact, was mostly mathematical equations. Flat-Earth theories don't work that way, Davis says. 

The flat-Earth worldview also involves cherry-picking different explanations for different phenomena. In real life, the Earth and the Moon are both round for the same quantifiable reason — gravity. Flat-Earth believers have to invent independent explanations for both, and these independent explanations often contradict one another. This isn’t how scientific theory works, Davis says. 

"If we can explain a thousand observations with one theory, a simple theory, that's better than explaining a thousand observations with a thousand theories," he said. 

But setting all that aside, if the Earth were truly flat, it would mean that the millions of scientists who deny its flatness — and who have done so throughout history — are united in a vast conspiracy for reasons that are flat-out unfathomable. It almost makes the prospect of a galactic panini press look realistic. 

Almost.

Originally published on Live Science.

How It Works Banner

Want more science? Get a subscription of our sister publication "How It Works" magazine, for the latest amazing science news.  (Image credit: Future plc)

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Stephanie Pappas
Live Science Contributor

Stephanie Pappas is a contributing writer for Space.com sister site Live Science, covering topics ranging from geoscience to archaeology to the human brain and behavior. She was previously a senior writer for Live Science but is now a freelancer based in Denver, Colorado, and regularly contributes to Scientific American and The Monitor, the monthly magazine of the American Psychological Association. Stephanie received a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of South Carolina and a graduate certificate in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. 

  • rod
    Okay, remember a central tenet of flat earth teaching today is that we live in a geocentric universe and an immovable, flat disk earth. Can you stand on the ground and show the Earth is moving or is it the Sun that is moving above the Earth? :) Flat earthers teach the Sun moves east-west near the *ends of the flat disk earth*, shinning like a spotlight on the flat disk earth and this causes day and night.
    Reply
  • mintman
    You can stand on the ground and test gravity with an apple, then ask the question: "why doesn't the sun fall down." But really, why bother? Newton saw an apple fall to the ground and calculated the orbit of Earth. Flat earthers have the wisdom of the world at their fingertips and use it to revive superstitions from the dark ages.
    Reply
  • rod
    Keep in mind, flat earth astronomy rejects Newton and gravity, some videos I viewed claim Tesla magnetism explains it all. An apple falls while the Sun is up-very different, perhaps buoyancy claims. The Flat Earth Society (Sun wiki) teaches the Sun is 32-miles across and 3,000 miles above the flat disk earth. The flat disk earth is the largest object in the universe and this can be correct given trigonometry like arcminute size for an object and distance measurement from Earth. Newton's gravity can show the Earth will orbit the Sun just like a small satellite can orbit the Earth - but how do you show the Earth is truly moving? Tycho Brahe attempted to show the planets moved around the Sun while Tycho's solar system with the Sun moved around the Earth and the Moon moved around the Earth, thus a geocentric-heliocentric model. The Earth was considered immovable. Flat earth teaches this view still. Various reports I read on popular science sites - seem not to address this issue. I know some in the flat earth community who told me that most folks they discuss flat earth with - simply point to space pictures of the round Earth as to how they know the Earth is a sphere. The ability to show the Earth is a sphere or spheroid and show that the Earth is moving around the Sun - is harder to demonstrate, my thinking.
    Reply
  • mofekka
    rod said:
    Okay, remember a central tenet of flat earth teaching today is that we live in a geocentric universe and an immovable, flat disk earth. Can you stand on the ground and show the Earth is moving or is it the Sun that is moving above the Earth? :) Flat earthers teach the Sun moves east-west near the *ends of the flat disk earth*, shinning like a spotlight on the flat disk earth and this causes day and night.


    Here is a video I made of a ballon orbiting a light source mimicking the phases of the moon.
    dd4N1fre6D4View: https://youtu.be/dd4N1fre6D4

    this proves the moon is round. Why would the earth be flat?
    Reply
  • rod
    FYI, the Flat Earth Society does agree that the Moon is round while the Earth is flat. https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
    "The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

    So a round Moon is used in FES teaching and a flat Earth :) Others in the flat earth movement teach the Moon is flat and translucent, including during lunar eclipses, stars can shine through the Moon. There are videos on the Internet teaching this.
    Reply
  • mofekka
    rod said:
    FYI, the Flat Earth Society does agree that the Moon is round while the Earth is flat. https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
    "The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

    So a round Moon is used in FES teaching and a flat Earth :) Others in the flat earth movement teach the Moon is flat and translucent, including during lunar eclipses, stars can shine through the Moon. There are videos on the Internet teaching this.


    wow, lol, good to know. How convenient for them.
    Reply
  • Catastrophe
    What If the Earth Was Flat?
    First put into English.

    What if the Earth were flat?

    Answer: It is not.

    Cat :)
    English is my native language.
    Reply
  • rod
    I received a gift recently. It is an old Navy navigation book. 'Navigation and Nautical Astronomy' by Dutton, 1926 updated 1951 published and used at the Annapolis Naval Academy. Ship navigation and air navigation from the old days and old school with the math, including using the stars and constellations to navigate :) It discusses navigating on a flat earth vs. spheroid shape and how much error you will find trying to navigate on the wrong shape Earth, conversions for different distances from the equator to the poles using latitude and longitude and how to determine your ship's position on the Earth :) I find it amazing how the Internet and social media changed so much old school science into the modern, flat earth movement today.
    Reply
  • Helio
    Catastrophe said:
    What If the Earth Was Flat?
    First put into English.

    What if the Earth were flat?

    Answer: It is not.

    Cat :)
    English is my native language.
    Yes and it "feels" right to use "were". Is there an easy way to remember when to use "were" over "was"? Do you say something like adding "to be" to it as in, "Earth were to be flat" vs. "Earth was to be flat".

    When I first got on forums, I didn't even know when to use "its" and "it's", but then quickly learned to consider the phrase "it is" for the later.
    Reply
  • Catastrophe
    Helio said:
    Yes and it "feels" right to use "were". Is there an easy way to remember when to use "were" over "was"? Do you say something like adding "to be" to it as in, "Earth were to be flat" vs. "Earth was to be flat".

    When I first got on forums, I didn't even know when to use "its" and "it's", but then quickly learned to consider the phrase "it is" for the later.
    I must dig out my book on English usage. IIRC the key word is IF, and it is called conditional.
    I agree wih you. To say "If I was ... " sounds entirely inept.

    Cat :)
    Reply