[BigGuyWhoKills]

What are the "latter days of FE funding"? That's what lay behind my question.

[edit] Brief potted history. Globe earth was first mooted by Eratosthenes (around 3rd cent BC). Ptolemy was the first to develop a detailed model. He was working in 2nd cent AD. Ptolemy’s work was picked up by the Arab scientists 9th–13th AD. From 13th century onwards, this was picked up by the Latin West, when Ptolemy’s ideas were refined. Many of the key figures in scientific progress in that period were members of the Catholic church. So the church had nothing to do with 'FE funding'.

By "latter days of FE funding", I meant the last couple of years/decades where a serious scientist considered the world flat.  Nowhere did I intend to imply that the Catholic church was funding any of this research.  The Catholic church established a number of schools, but most of the astronomers of that time were independently wealthy.

[BillO]

I have searched this site and cannot find anything about how and when the Flat Earth was formed.

Is there any accepted estimate on when it formed and how that formation occurred?

Two people are looking at a shape. One person says it's a relatively flat 2d circle and another person says it's a more round 3d sphere shape.

Then you come along and ask how old the shape is and how it was created.  Well these are very loaded questions and the answers would range from

Age: less than 10,000 years. How it was formed: God.
to
Age: Billions of years. How it was formed: Unknown but the big bang theory seems promising.

This variation about the origins and age of the universe are independent of theory about the shape of the earth.

None of the current theory on how bodies form in space will allow for a flat body.  So that part of my question was seeking, though inquiry, what new and wonderful theory the FEs had devised to account for what caused it.  The other, on the age, was to determine how fast this enormous flat body they thought up might be now traveling WRT it's birthplace.  I was then going to do a follow-up question on what their zetetic  efforts had come up with regarding the cause of the acceleration itself.  It is apparent, however, that hundreds of years of flat-earth thinking on these matters has not even begun to scratch the surface on some of these questions.  Maybe they tried and failed, maybe they did not like the implications such thought processes offered.  Maybe they are just not inquisitive enough to even try.  Who knows?  No one is talking.

They know the earth is flat, they just don't have a clue how that happened.

[iamcpc]

None of the current theory on how bodies form in space will allow for a flat body. 

Depending on what you believe about the creation of celestial bodies this is incorrect.

-God can create a flat disk in space in less than one nanosecond.
-God can create a flat disk in space in billions of years.
-I see the flat disk rings of Saturn. isn't there some theory about that?

[BillO]

None of the current theory on how bodies form in space will allow for a flat body. 

Depending on what you believe about the creation of celestial bodies this is incorrect.

-God can create a flat disk in space in less than one nanosecond.
-God can create a flat disk in space in billions of years.

I'm atheist.

-I see the flat disk rings of Saturn. isn't there some theory about that?

Other planets have rings too, but none of them are single objects.  They are made up of billions of tiny objects.

Here is a Cassini photo of a larger object forming slowly in Saturn's rings.  You can see how the material first accretes to a disc, then begins to collapse into the nearly spherical body of the object.


Another angle:

[Tom Bishop]

Pretty good image quality for Cassini's 1 megapixel 1990's digital camera technology.

[BillO]

Mot more than you would expect.  That first image is the entire frame from the NAC. the 2d is a unmagnified crop from the same camera.

Below is a 5x magnification of just the object.  Not really all that great.

[iamcpc]

Other planets have rings too, but none of them are single objects.  They are made up of billions of tiny objects.

You could say that about the earth too. The earth is not a single object. The earth is made up of billions of tiny objects like sand, rocks, particles of dirt, water molecules etc.

the facts are that we can observe, in space, things which are relatively "flat" in shape.

[BillO]

So?  I'm not sure what this has to do with this case.  Planetary rings cannot be treated like single objects.  The earth and other planets can.  The particles of and a rock are in psychical contact with each other and their degrees of freedom of motion are limited by that.

[iamcpc]

So?  I'm not sure what this has to do with this case.  Planetary rings cannot be treated like single objects.  The earth and other planets can.  The particles of and a rock are in psychical contact with each other and their degrees of freedom of motion are limited by that.

There are planets made of gas.   A gas cloud shaped like a sphere orbiting a star is a "planet" to you but a flat disk ring of gas is not? Sounds like bias to me. I could just as easily say that the sphere gas cloud is not a planet and the flat disk gas cloud is.

by definition a planet is "a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star." I don't see anywhere in the definition where it mentions a shape.

[BillO]

The rings are not made of gas.  They couldn't possibly be.

There is plenty of information about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn

They consist of countless small particles, ranging from μm to m in size, that orbit about Saturn. The ring particles are made almost entirely of water ice, with a trace component of rocky material.

[AATW]

by definition a planet is "a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star." I don't see anywhere in the definition where it mentions a shape.

The definition has moved on a bit and does include shape

https://www.space.com/25986-planet-definition.html

There are plenty of objects which fit your definition but are not considered planets, even Pluto has been demoted.

Yes, not every object in the solar system is a sphere but every object above a certain size is because gravity pulls any object above a certain size into a sphere or very close to.

(EDIT: By size I really mean mass)

[iamcpc]

The rings are not made of gas.  They couldn't possibly be.

This is outright wrong. There are rings of gas around stars and black holes. I would strongly suggest that you stop by a local college and talk to an astronomy professor.

here's one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk



Here's another:
https://www.space.com/24666-strange-star-chemistry-planet-formation.html



and another:
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

[iamcpc]

by definition a planet is "a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star." I don't see anywhere in the definition where it mentions a shape.

The definition has moved on a bit and does include shape

https://www.space.com/25986-planet-definition.html

There are plenty of objects which fit your definition but are not considered planets, even Pluto has been demoted.

Yes, not every object in the solar system is a sphere but every object above a certain size is because gravity pulls any object above a certain size into a sphere or very close to.

(EDIT: By size I really mean mass)

If planet is defined as a sphere then we are not using the correct terminology in any flat earth model. But the original post was about the age and the formation of the Flat Earth and does not mention a planet. I had thought "Earth" meant the celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around our sun that we currently live on.

[BillO]

The rings are not made of gas.  They couldn't possibly be.

This is outright wrong. There are rings of gas around stars and black holes. I would strongly suggest that you stop by a local college and talk to an astronomy professor.

here's one link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk



Here's another:
https://www.space.com/24666-strange-star-chemistry-planet-formation.html



and another:
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

This is a blatant straw man argument.  We were talking about this solar system.  Saturn in particular.

Your straw men are not at all the same case - on several counts.  Three I can think of right off - 1) Formation of planets is a different thing than a planet that was formed 4 billion years ago.  2) those rings are a completely different dynamic/shape/consistency than are the rings around the planets in our solar system.  3) Those situations are basically gas whirlpools spiraling into the main body, thick and fluffy - nothing like our planetary rings which are extremely thin and consist of particulate and coalesced solid matter in long term stable orbits.

I'll state it again, there is no gas in the rings of Saturn or any other planet here and there cannot be.

[iamcpc]

This is a blatant straw man argument.  We were talking about this solar system.  Saturn in particular.

Your straw men are not at all the same case - on several counts.  Three I can think of right off - 1) Formation of planets is a different thing than a planet that was formed 4 billion years ago.  2) those rings are a completely different dynamic/shape/consistency than are the rings around the planets in our solar system.  3) Those situations are basically gas whirlpools spiraling into the main body, thick and fluffy - nothing like our planetary rings which are extremely thin and consist of particulate and coalesced solid matter in long term stable orbits.

I'll state it again, there is no gas in the rings of Saturn or any other planet here and there cannot be.

I thought we were talking about the formation of celestial bodies.


You had said this:

"None of the current theory on how bodies form in space will allow for a flat body.  So that part of my question was seeking, though inquiry, what new and wonderful theory the FEs had devised to account for what caused it.  The other, on the age, was to determine how fast this enormous flat body they thought up might be now traveling WRT it's birthplace."

My response was that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis. I gave examples of flat, disk shaped, celestial bodies such as planetary disks, and the rings of Saturn. You can chose to accept that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis or reject it. Either way you got your answers.

[BillO]

My response was that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis. I gave examples of flat, disk shaped, celestial bodies such as planetary disks, and the rings of Saturn. You can chose to accept that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis or reject it. Either way you got your answers.

Accretion disks and planetary rings are not 'bodies'.  Accretion disks are temporary and undergoing huge flux and planetary rings are many bodies.  None of these are anything like a 'flat earth'.  Try setting up shop on and accretion disk or a planetary ring.

I'll stick with my assertion.

[iamcpc]

My response was that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis. I gave examples of flat, disk shaped, celestial bodies such as planetary disks, and the rings of Saturn. You can chose to accept that flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis or reject it. Either way you got your answers.

Accretion disks and planetary rings are not 'bodies'.  Accretion disks are temporary and undergoing huge flux and planetary rings are many bodies.  None of these are anything like a 'flat earth'.  Try setting up shop on and accretion disk or a planetary ring.

I'll stick with my assertion.

Since we don't agree on the definition of the term 'body' I'll rephrase my previous statement. 
"flat disk shaped celestial bodies do form on a regular basis." is now chaging to:
"Flat disk shaped things do form on a regular basis.

The flat earth was created in a similar way that the other flat things in space were formed.