How did the universe begin in FE model?

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

My personal belief is that the turtle shat out the earth and farted the heavens (which is why they float above us).  He was so proud of his massive dump that he put it on his back as ornamentation.  Some people believe that four elephants are involved but I think that's just silly, unless of course the turtle shat them out too.

We don't know. There is no evidence on how the universe formed. And we will never 100% know since nothing was living to see the universe form and record how it happened.

Since the Earth is the center of the universe according to FE theory, it would imply some kind of intelligent design (ID). Proponents of ID are generally unwilling to accept that the Earth is just some blue planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in a galaxy full of stars and planets. So it fits their world view well if the Earth is percieved to be the center of the universe. Due to the ridiculously contrived nature of FE theory, I surmise that most proponents believe it was created by a higher power.

A higher power on crack that is.

We don't know. There is no evidence on how the universe formed. And we will never 100% know since nothing was living to see the universe form and record how it happened.

Doesn't always need recording though. When you pick up bits and pieces or evidence you can deduce what could have happened. Kinda like at a crime scene: nobody has actually seen the crime but when you trace the blood spatter and fingerprints etc you can come up with some descent theories, if not atleast hypothesis of how it happened.

I'm not asking for anything accurate or anything, just the most up-to-date hypotheses. I personally can't come up with one even if I try, unless of course you go with the design argument, but in a previous thread I read most people here are atheists... Don't know if that's something to go by though.

Since the Earth is the center of the universe according to FE theory, it would imply some kind of intelligent design (ID). Proponents of ID are generally unwilling to accept that the Earth is just some blue planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in a galaxy full of stars and planets. So it fits their world view well if the Earth is percieved to be the center of the universe. Due to the ridiculously contrived nature of FE theory, I surmise that most proponents believe it was created by a higher power.

A higher power on crack that is.

 Where does it say that the Eath is the center of the universe in FE theory?

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 12:02:48 PM

We don't know. There is no evidence on how the universe formed. And we will never 100% know since nothing was living to see the universe form and record how it happened.

Doesn't always need recording though. When you pick up bits and pieces or evidence you can deduce what could have happened. Kinda like at a crime scene: nobody has actually seen the crime but when you trace the blood spatter and fingerprints etc you can come up with some descent theories, if not atleast hypothesis of how it happened.

I'm not asking for anything accurate or anything, just the most up-to-date hypotheses. I personally can't come up with one even if I try, unless of course you go with the design argument, but in a previous thread I read most people here are atheists... Don't know if that's something to go by though.

 As I said in my previous post, there is no evidence.

In order to begin scientific conjecture about the beginning of the universe, you must first have a working scientific model of the current state of the universe, so that you can attempt to trace the history of the universe back to where it began. FE theory is based on the following premise: "Dude, what you see is just an illusion! And the government is lying to you man!"

Based on these fundamental and undeniable truths, I would assume that the universe was created in the 1800's by an early predecessor of the North Americal Space Administration.

Since the Earth is the center of the universe according to FE theory, it would imply some kind of intelligent design (ID). Proponents of ID are generally unwilling to accept that the Earth is just some blue planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in a galaxy full of stars and planets. So it fits their world view well if the Earth is percieved to be the center of the universe. Due to the ridiculously contrived nature of FE theory, I surmise that most proponents believe it was created by a higher power.

A higher power on crack that is.

You are completely mistaken.  Most FEers here are atheists.

It doesn't matter. RE'ers like to paint with broad brushes.

How did the universe begin in FE model?

How are we supposed to know? We weren't there to witness it.

Quote

How did the universe begin in FE model?

How are we supposed to know? We weren't there to witness it.

You can't know empirically. All I'm asking is for what you might deduce as a possible theory, kinda like my crime scene analogy I posted earlier:

Doesn't always need recording though. When you pick up bits and pieces or evidence you can deduce what could have happened. Kinda like at a crime scene: nobody has actually seen the crime but when you trace the blood spatter and fingerprints etc you can come up with some descent theories, if not atleast hypothesis of how it happened.

In order to begin scientific conjecture about the beginning of the universe, you must first have a working scientific model of the current state of the universe, so that you can attempt to trace the history of the universe back to where it began. FE theory is based on the following premise: "Dude, what you see is just an illusion! And the government is lying to you man!"

Based on these fundamental and undeniable truths, I would assume that the universe was created in the 1800's by an early predecessor of the North Americal Space Administration.

MadDogX, didn't you say last week that you're leaving this board and denouncing all of the board's members?  Did you have a change of heart?

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Alright, causality as we know it can't explain no universe -> universe. But it can explain what happens within the universe. Formation does not equal creation, which is why we can explain the universe as it is in RE. This means that the universe didn't always have to be the same. At the beginning it expanded rapidly, and then a sequence of events followed as I explained earlier.

With the FE theory, I can't find any suitable way that there could be any formation. Creation seems the only possible answer - except, to me, being a skeptic, it doesn't seem possible. I'm really cornered here when trying to imagine any possible way it could have formed, regardless of how crazy this theory may sound.

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Alright, causality as we know it can't explain no universe -> universe. But it can explain what happens within the universe. Formation does not equal creation, which is why we can explain the universe as it is in RE. This means that the universe didn't always have to be the same. At the beginning it expanded rapidly, and then a sequence of events followed as I explained earlier.

With the FE theory, I can't find any suitable way that there could be any formation. Creation seems the only possible answer - except, to me, being a skeptic, it doesn't seem possible. I'm really cornered here when trying to imagine any possible way it could have formed, regardless of how crazy this theory may sound.

There are ways to explain the FE creation under models like the Cambridge model.  However, I still hold that there needs be no reason for the earth to have formed.  REers should note, that their precious Copernican principle holds this true also, despite the principle being complete bollocks.

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Alright, causality as we know it can't explain no universe -> universe. But it can explain what happens within the universe. Formation does not equal creation, which is why we can explain the universe as it is in RE. This means that the universe didn't always have to be the same. At the beginning it expanded rapidly, and then a sequence of events followed as I explained earlier.

With the FE theory, I can't find any suitable way that there could be any formation. Creation seems the only possible answer - except, to me, being a skeptic, it doesn't seem possible. I'm really cornered here when trying to imagine any possible way it could have formed, regardless of how crazy this theory may sound.

There are ways to explain the FE creation under models like the Cambridge model.  However, I still hold that there needs be no reason for the earth to have formed.  REers should note, that their precious Copernican principle holds this true also, despite the principle being complete bollocks.

Hmm. So you believe the universe, including FE and the sun and moon, etc, have always, just been? That doesn't satisfy me, and I think that anyone who wants true knowledge shouldn't be satisfied either.

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Alright, causality as we know it can't explain no universe -> universe. But it can explain what happens within the universe. Formation does not equal creation, which is why we can explain the universe as it is in RE. This means that the universe didn't always have to be the same. At the beginning it expanded rapidly, and then a sequence of events followed as I explained earlier.

With the FE theory, I can't find any suitable way that there could be any formation. Creation seems the only possible answer - except, to me, being a skeptic, it doesn't seem possible. I'm really cornered here when trying to imagine any possible way it could have formed, regardless of how crazy this theory may sound.

There are ways to explain the FE creation under models like the Cambridge model.  However, I still hold that there needs be no reason for the earth to have formed.  REers should note, that their precious Copernican principle holds this true also, despite the principle being complete bollocks.

Hmm. So you believe the universe, including FE and the sun and moon, etc, have always, just been? That doesn't satisfy me, and I think that anyone who wants true knowledge shouldn't be satisfied either.

Why does that not satisfy you?  Is there a rational reason, or is it simply bias? (not trying to flame or anything, curious.  I have many non-rational biases myself.)  It certainly wouldn't be the first time science has thought  the universe always was.

And I'm not sure the sun/moon/antimoon/heavens always were.  The flat earth, and the universe as a whole though, yes.

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:24:51 PM

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:19:29 PM

Quote from: Username on June 30, 2008, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

It's easy enough to explain in the RE model: Big bang, lots of gas, collapsed into stars, formed galaxies, rocks joined together and grew bigger, eventually becoming round from the pressure of their own gravity, etc.

How does FE suggest the universe began, with a big flat Earth, with some point-lights moving around above it, as if it were designed that way? Could it have occurred through a series of natural phenomena?

Thanks.

The universe always was and always is.  There can not be a start or beginning.  IMO, this should be apparent from what we know about causality.

Alright, causality as we know it can't explain no universe -> universe. But it can explain what happens within the universe. Formation does not equal creation, which is why we can explain the universe as it is in RE. This means that the universe didn't always have to be the same. At the beginning it expanded rapidly, and then a sequence of events followed as I explained earlier.

With the FE theory, I can't find any suitable way that there could be any formation. Creation seems the only possible answer - except, to me, being a skeptic, it doesn't seem possible. I'm really cornered here when trying to imagine any possible way it could have formed, regardless of how crazy this theory may sound.

There are ways to explain the FE creation under models like the Cambridge model.  However, I still hold that there needs be no reason for the earth to have formed.  REers should note, that their precious Copernican principle holds this true also, despite the principle being complete bollocks.

Hmm. So you believe the universe, including FE and the sun and moon, etc, have always, just been? That doesn't satisfy me, and I think that anyone who wants true knowledge shouldn't be satisfied either.

Why does that not satisfy you?  Is there a rational reason, or is it simply bias? (not trying to flame or anything, curious.  I have many non-rational biases myself.)  It certainly wouldn't be the first time science has thought  the universe always was.

And I'm not sure the sun/moon/antimoon/heavens always were.  The flat earth, and the universe as a whole though, yes.

I think for something that works that doesn't go through formation must be designed, including always being. So that's really my dilemma. If formed, then how? If designed, then by who? Of course I don't want to get into a whole God debate here.

Frankly, I do believe in a Prime Mover, but I am in the minority in the FE community here.

I think for something that works that doesn't go through formation must be designed, including always being. So that's really my dilemma. If formed, then how? If designed, then by who? Of course I don't want to get into a whole God debate here.

How do you define "works"? :/

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:31:43 PM

I think for something that works that doesn't go through formation must be designed, including always being. So that's really my dilemma. If formed, then how? If designed, then by who? Of course I don't want to get into a whole God debate here.

How do you define "works"? :/

Lol. A lot of people around here seem to always ask "how do you define <something>?". The sun somehow moves round above the Earth, so does the moon. For some reason the whole universe is accelerating upwards at 1 g, apart from everything that is supposed to feel the Earth moving up. That kind of stuff.

Quote

How did the universe begin in FE model?

How are we supposed to know? We weren't there to witness it.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Put it this way Tom: if you see a patch of ice on the road, skid marks after that and then a car wrapped around a tree, you're going to know what happenned with a pretty high certainty, even if you weren't there to witness it.

If there were any astrophysicists with half a brain that supprted FET, they could look at their data and figure out some theories, then test and refine them. That's how science works. As it happens, the only people that support FET are people that have very little knowledge about how the universe works.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2008, 01:39:15 PM

Quote

How did the universe begin in FE model?

How are we supposed to know? We weren't there to witness it.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Put it this way Tom: if you see a patch of ice on the road, skid marks after that and then a car wrapped around a tree, you're going to know what happenned with a pretty high certainty, even if you weren't there to witness it.

If there were any astrophysicists with half a brain that supprted FET, they could look at their data and figure out some theories, then test and refine them. That's how science works. As it happens, the only people that support FET are people that have very little knowledge about how the universe works.

Exactly. Of course from a scientific point of view it's still an unobserved theory, but it's something. That's all I'm asking for. Something, even if it's just some crazy spit-in-the-air hypothesis. I've already heard the design argument, but anyone who knows anything will know about the infinite regress of "who designed the designer?"

FE theory is, frankly, very much underdeveloped (a natural result of the intellectual persecution of our beliefs), and without being dismissive, there are far more pressing questions for FE'ers to attend to with regard to the FE model.

Quote from: Username on July 01, 2008, 01:54:53 AM

Quote from: Zotoaster on June 30, 2008, 04:31:43 PM

I think for something that works that doesn't go through formation must be designed, including always being. So that's really my dilemma. If formed, then how? If designed, then by who? Of course I don't want to get into a whole God debate here.

How do you define "works"? :/

Lol. A lot of people around here seem to always ask "how do you define <something>?". The sun somehow moves round above the Earth, so does the moon. For some reason the whole universe is accelerating upwards at 1 g, apart from everything that is supposed to feel the Earth moving up. That kind of stuff.

The Earth somehow moves around the sun, likewise every other satellite.
For some reason the whole universe is expanding.  This expansion is accelerating.
Space "bends" which goes against everything intuitively we know about everything.
How does observation change what happens?

That kinda stuff?

My point was not hte definition of "works" but the bias nature in which you choose your definition.  There are several thousand variables that just happen to make the RE model "work" as you put it.  Likewise, there are conditions and variables that could make a FE universe "work".

The Earth somehow moves around the sun, likewise every other satellite.

Because of gravity, see Cavendish experiment.

For some reason the whole universe is expanding.  This expansion is accelerating.

Dark energy. I'll admit that this is unexplained, although there are theories, which is better than FE has got (note that DE cannot explain the UA).

Space "bends" which goes against everything intuitively we know about everything.

In science, intuition counts for nothing. Only evidence, which GR has in spades.

How does observation change what happens?

This probably isn't the argument you were looking for, but according to quantum theory it does.

ghazwozza, when you say that the universe "works", you are implying design.  The universe just is the way it is.  There is no intended function (unless you do believe in an intelligent Creator), therefore there is no foundation for judging that it works.  It's nonsensical from anything but a theological point of view.

ghazwozza, when you say that the universe "works", you are implying design.  The universe just is the way it is.  There is no intended function (unless you do believe in an intelligent Creator), therefore there is no foundation for judging that it works.  It's nonsensical from anything but a theological point of view.

I assume you are referring to this comment:

As it happens, the only people that support FET are people that have very little knowledge about how the universe works.

When I talk about how the universe "works", I just mean why things happen the way they do, rather than whether or not they fulfill some intended function.

(note that DE cannot explain the UA).

Why?