Creation

Just out of intrest, do all FE's have the same belief on creation, or are they all different, and if FE is real, is the Big Bang theory possible?

Creation has nothing to do with flat earth in the end, same thing with big bang I'd say.

edti:
We also, have varying opinions on everything.

I posted my creation theory in "Other Alternative Science" with a title like "Dark Matter Cosmology: The Origins of a Flat Universe".

Erasmus totally shot it down, but it might give you some ideas. And no, Flat Earthers don't have a single consistent creation theory (but then nor do Round Earthers).

On that point you are incorrect, Dogplatter.

RE'ers do have a consistent theory to explain the origin of the Earth.  

The Earth formed from a debris field that orbited the sun beetween 4 billion and 5 billion years ago.  This has been the accepted scientific theory for at least 20 years.

This theories strongest suporting evidence comes from the observation of planet formation in younger solar systems, in other parts of the galaxy.

Now I will admit that scientists are still working out the details, but there are very who do not accept this as fact.

Eh.  I'm fairly certain a large proportion of RE'ers believe that God created Earth.  As in, the seven days thing, as told in Genesis.  It's kind of silly, but whatever.

Not to mention all the other creation theories.

As far as the "scientific" world goes, yes, the theory is pretty consistent.

This theories strongest suporting evidence comes from the observation of planet formation in younger solar systems, in other parts of the galaxy.

Why should what's going on hundreds of light years a way have any bearing on what happened year, billions of years ago?

Quote from: "Max Fagin"

This theories strongest suporting evidence comes from the observation of planet formation in younger solar systems, in other parts of the galaxy.

Why should what's going on hundreds of light years a way have any bearing on what happened year, billions of years ago?

Because the materials are the same... (Same periodic table there as here, then as now) and the physics are the same (Gravity generated by mass attracts mass there, gravity generated by mass attracts mass here then as now)

As such, it is reasonable to conclude that proto system processes vieweed NOW are, at least, extremely similar to the proto system process that occurred in our OWN solar system billions of years ago.

Similar materials, similar physics. Similar results. To be fair... there could be more or less heavy materials present... (Iron and above being created in supernovae and all) But I think it's safe to assume the materials are... similar.

Thats more or less right RenaissanceMan.

We have no reason to assume that the laws of physics are any different here then they are anywhere else in the universe.  That was one of the greatest discoveries of the enlightenment; The discovery that the same set of equations and laws that explain falling objects here on Earth, can also explain the motion of the planets and stars.

Thats more or less right RenaissanceMan.

We have no reason to assume that the laws of physics are any different here then they are anywhere else in the universe.  That was one of the greatest discoveries of the enlightenment; The discovery that the same set of equations and laws that explain falling objects here on Earth, can also explain the motion of the planets and stars.

we have no reason to assume the earth is flat  :wink:

edit:
or we have just as much reason to assume....

The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist said:

we have no reason to assume the earth is flat

Exactly.

Otherwise, we would have to assume that the Earth was somehow different from the rest of the universe . . .

accualy, i was demonstrating how a FE would take what you were saying. If they beleive that the earth is flat, then you cant expect them to believe waht you said.

Well the difference between the FE'ers and me is this:

I have 200 years of Enlightenment science, and 10 years of personal astronomical observations to tell me that the Earth is not special.

We have no reason to assume the laws of physics would be different, no.  But That's not a reason to assume that they are the same.  The only reason to assume they're the same is because it makes science easier.

and because it make testable predictions.

Listen Erasmus, we wouldn't just assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere without justification, that's not good science.

But everywhere in the Universe, things seem to be governed by the same laws.  And every time an Astronomer makes an observation confirming this, the theory becomes more and more accepted.  And that is a reason to assume the Earth has no special place in the cosmos.

and because it make testable predictions.

What sort of testable predictions does astronomy make?  Seems like it's mostly, "When you get such-and-such a spectrum, means there's hydrogen over thar!"  How do you test that?

You sound just like my college physics professor. "Don't go into astronomy, its all just optics!"

Take it from me, astronomy is much much more then just looking at spectral lines.

You want some predictions? Okay, here are some big ones:

1) Astronomers, working under the Big Bang assumption, figured that if you played everything back in time that energy would be crammed into a smaller space, that means the temperature would go up. And also since galaxies couldn’t have formed yet, we’d expect a gaseous sort of universe early on.  Hot dense gasses emit photons at a peak wavelength corresponding to their temperature. Unfortunately, since things were so dense, photons couldn’t get very far.

However, with the available information, astronomers were able to determine at what density and time, photons would finally be able to get far enough that we could observe them. This is called the “surface of last scattering” and has a very specific temperature. So we should be able to look for photons with energy (wavelength) corresponding to that temperature.

But due to red shift, they will appear at a different wavelength. This radiation should appear from every direction. This was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory.

Years later, it was confirmed by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation (CBR) at exactly the predicted wavelength.

2) Observations of the behavior of galaxies suggested the existence of "Dark Matter" which did not follow the rules of traditional black body radiation.  It's existence was all but confirmed a few months ago.  The description is rather technical, so I'll just link to it.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/


3) The existence of Pluto was first postulated owing to an observed irregularity in the orbit of Uranus.  After running through the math, astronomers came up with a predicted location for where Pluto should be.  Percival Lowell aimed his telescope at that location, and discovered a planet (Well. . . it's not a planet anymore)

4) And then of course there are the more obvious predictions, like the eclipses and transits that astronomers regularly predict with unprecedented accuracy.

I can keep going.  There are dozens more I could name.

So do you see now why we can assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere?