Earth is Flat

[Ricky M]

I am personally dumbfounded at how humans demand politicians to be perfect during campaign, and then waive all their demerits when they are in office - continuously feeding the illusion of choice between the "lesser" of two evils. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

For the record;

We were told thousands of years ago that, flat or round, the world would end up in the hands of the antichrist. It is extremely naive to think righteous people - from either side - will lead us there. Republican or democrat, they are but two roads that reach the same end. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton - they are ALL stepping stones to that end. And there's no way we can ever vote ourselves out of that prophecy.

 

[Kaon]

For the record;

We were told thousands of years ago that, flat or round, the world would end up in the hands of the antichrist. It is extremely naive to think righteous people - from either side - will lead us there. Republican or democrat, they are but two roads that reach the same end. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton - they are ALL stepping stones to that end. And there's no way we can ever vote ourselves out of that prophecy.

Fair enough. And in that context, dumbfounded may be a strong word. Amazed?

But, you are right I believe.

 

[sjastro]

Sadly Flerfers appear to be unable to do mathematics even that simple. As a result they will either ignore the math or deny the math. And maybe add a jibe that since you trust math you are not a True Christian™.

On the plus side that was an excellent post.

The maths is ultimately attributed to Issac Newton.
While Issac was not your orthodox type Protestant (he believed in a form of Christianity that was declared heretical in the 4th century) he was in very sense of the word a religious extremist.
It illustrates that even extremists can see the use of mathematics.

Incidentally in Newton's masterpiece Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Newton believed in a spherical Earth.
From the work a projectile that goes into orbit..........

 

[Subduction Zone]

The maths is ultimately attributed to Issac Newton.
While Issac was not your orthodox type Protestant (he believed in a form of Christianity that was declared heretical in the 4th century) he was in very sense of the word a religious extremist.
It illustrates that even extremists can see the use of mathematics.

Incidentally in Newton's masterpiece Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Newton believed in a spherical Earth.
From the work a projectile that goes into orbit..........

Yep, I was well schooled in that in college, it seems like a million years ago.

On a side note here is one of my favorite problems I ever ran into in Newtonian gravity:

Somewhere in the strange realms of space there is an odd object. Perfectly spherical, and solid, except for a hollow. The hollow is totally enclosed in the planet and it to is spherical. The terms are all going to be very general for this problem. The density of the solid part of the planet is p (sorry, no rho character on my keyboard. The density of the hollow is zero. I must emphasize that the hollow is not[b/] concentric to the sphere. The radius of the Sphere is R. The center of the sphere is located as determined by the vector form of the radius of its center r[/r]. The small sphere as its own radius (heck I have run out of "R"s) s (lower case s for smaller sphere). Lets mix in some non-polar coordinates to make it more confusing. What is the force of gravity at a point A,B,C, within the hollow. Both magnitude of force and direction are needed.

 

[pitabread]

For the record;

We were told thousands of years ago that, flat or round, the world would end up in the hands of the antichrist. It is extremely naive to think righteous people - from either side - will lead us there. Republican or democrat, they are but two roads that reach the same end. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton - they are ALL stepping stones to that end. And there's no way we can ever vote ourselves out of that prophecy.

What makes you think that American politics has anything to do with Biblical prophecy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think that American politics has anything to do with Biblical prophecy?

Selective reinterpretation of Revelation is usually the cause.

 

[Ricky M]

What makes you think that American politics has anything to do with Biblical prophecy?

For the world to fall into the antichrist's hands, the world's current governments will have to fail. Including the government of the USA. Too, people will have to be trained and conditioned to accept a one world rule. NEITHER of which can/will happen if we are being led by righteous people.

 

[sjastro]

Yep, I was well schooled in that in college, it seems like a million years ago.

On a side note here is one of my favorite problems I ever ran into in Newtonian gravity:

Somewhere in the strange realms of space there is an odd object. Perfectly spherical, and solid, except for a hollow. The hollow is totally enclosed in the planet and it to is spherical. The terms are all going to be very general for this problem. The density of the solid part of the planet is p (sorry, no rho character on my keyboard. The density of the hollow is zero. I must emphasize that the hollow is not[b/] concentric to the sphere. The radius of the Sphere is R. The center of the sphere is located as determined by the vector form of the radius of its center r[/r]. The small sphere as its own radius (heck I have run out of "R"s) s (lower case s for smaller sphere). Lets mix in some non-polar coordinates to make it more confusing. What is the force of gravity at a point A,B,C, within the hollow. Both magnitude of force and direction are needed.

I am familiar with this problem and the simplest solution is to use post Newton maths involving Gauss’s Divergence Theorem which states;
“The gravitational flux through a surface is proportional to the enclosed mass.”
If the hollow and solid spheres are concentric the problem is reduced to Newton’s Shell Theorem which states there is no gravitational force acting on a particle anywhere within the hollow.

Since this is not the case the solution is to use a bit of trickery which appears not to have a physical significance.
This is to consider a sphere with a positive density ρ and sphere with a negative density –ρ.
The idea is when the spheres are added, the densities cancel each other out and you are left with a hollow.
The rational behind this is that there is a similar problem in electrostatics for a cavity in an electric field where the cavity is the sum of positive and electric charges which are physically real.

Mathematically Gauss’s Divergence Theorem is;

V is the volume bounded by a closed surface S, dA is a surface element.
Pictorially the theorem for a sphere is depicted as follows (here dS = dA).

For the sphere the equation is easily solved.
The left hand integral is the integration over a surface S and equals g(r)4πr² where 4πr² is the surface area of a sphere.
The right hand integral is the integration over a volume V and equals -4πGρ/3(r³) where 4π/3(r³) is the volume of a sphere.

Hence the solution to Gauss's divergence theorem for a sphere is;
g(r) = -4πGρ/3(r)

g is the acceleration represented as a gravitational vector field and is a function of the radial vector r, G is the gravitational constant.

Suppose the sphere with the positive density ρ has a centre at r = x₁ and the sphere with the negative density –ρ and centre at r = x₂.
Applying Gauss’s divergence Theorem to the positive and negative density spheres results in the gravitational field equations;

g₁(r) = -4πGρ/3(r-x₁) and g₂(r) = 4πGρ/3(r-x₂) respectively.

The condition |r - x₁| > |r - x₂| applies since the positive density sphere is larger with the negative density sphere enclosed within.
The superposition principle allows us to add the gravitational fields as Newtonian gravity is linear.

g(r) = g₁(r) + g₂(r) = -4πGρ/3(x₁-x₂)
g(r) is the gravitational field of the hallow and has the constant value -4πGρ/3.

A particle of mass m in this hallow has a gravitational force -4πGρm/3 acting on it in the direction of the vector (x₁-x₂).
Note if x₁ = x₂, the shells are concentric and g(r) = 0 which is Newton’s Shell Theorem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am familiar with this problem and the simplest solution is to use post Newton maths involving Gauss’s Divergence Theorem which states;
“The gravitational flux through a surface is proportional to the enclosed mass.”
If the hollow and solid spheres are concentric the problem is reduced to Newton’s Shell Theorem which states there is no gravitational force acting on a particle anywhere within the hollow.

Since this is not the case the solution is to use a bit of trickery which appears not to have a physical significance.
This is to consider a sphere with a positive density ρ and sphere with a negative density –ρ.
The idea is when the spheres are added, the densities cancel each other out and you are left with a hollow.
The rational behind this is that there is a similar problem in electrostatics for a cavity in an electric field where the cavity is the sum of positive and electric charges which are physically real.

Mathematically Gauss’s Divergence Theorem is;

V is the volume bounded by a closed surface S, dA is a surface element.
Pictorially the theorem for a sphere is depicted as follows (here dS = dA).

For the sphere the equation is easily solved.
The left hand integral is the integration over a surface S and equals g(r)4πr² where 4πr² is the surface area of a sphere.
The right hand integral is the integration over a volume V and equals -4πGρ/3(r³) where 4π/3(r³) is the volume of a sphere.

Hence the solution to Gauss's divergence theorem for a sphere is;
g(r) = -4πGρ/3(r)

g is the acceleration represented as a gravitational vector field and is a function of the radial vector r, G is the gravitational constant.

Suppose the sphere with the positive density ρ has a centre at r = x₁ and the sphere with the negative density –ρ and centre at r = x₂.
Applying Gauss’s divergence Theorem to the positive and negative density spheres results in the gravitational field equations;

g₁(r) = -4πGρ/3(r-x₁) and g₂(r) = 4πGρ/3(r-x₂) respectively.

The condition |r - x₁| > |r - x₂| applies since the positive density sphere is larger with the negative density sphere enclosed within.
The superposition principle allows us to add the gravitational fields as Newtonian gravity is linear.

g(r) = g₁(r) + g₂(r) = -4πGρ/3(x₁-x₂)
g(r) is the gravitational field of the hallow and has the constant value -4πGρ/3.

A particle of mass m in this hallow has a gravitational force -4πGρm/3 acting on it in the direction of the vector (x₁-x₂).
Note if x₁ = x₂, the shells are concentric and g(r) = 0 which is Newton’s Shell Theorem.

I am rather fond of that one problem because when I went to university I got a job as a general tutor and that was a question a student brought to me. According to the question it was originally in some sort of Russian quiz. I managed to solve it then, but I do not know if I could today given the same problem without my prior knowledge. Use it or lose it and I have lost quite a bit since my good old college days. I have also seen this problem using a nonconducting solid with a hollow in it and the problem was to find the electrical field at some point in the hollow. The math is of course exactly the same.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Why is the sun apparently 93 million miles away from Earth? Because 93 = Saturn.

93,000,000 is not the actual distance... that number is rounded up from the average distance. The sun is as close as 91.4 million miles, and as far as 94.5 million miles. The average of those two numbers is 92.95 million.

Only twice a year is it 93,000,000 miles from earth- most of the time it is farther or much closer. Using the superstition of numerology doesn’t fit. It would have to be consistent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

93,000,000 is not the actual distance... that number is rounded up from the average distance. The sun is as close as 91.4 million miles, and as far as 94.5 million miles. The average of those two numbers is 92.95 million.

Only twice a year is it 93,000,000 miles from earth- most of the time it is farther or much closer. Using the superstition of numerology doesn’t fit. It would have to be consistent.

And why does your interlocutor get to divide by one million to get a number that "equals Saturn". Shouldn't 93 million equal Saturn?

And why English? I vote we check for significance by checking against Hindi.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Are you sure God would create Earth with the mark of the beast all over? I think not.

The human body is primarily water and carbon, and generally reflects the substances of the earth, as it should.

The carbon atom is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons; respectively, in these quantities: 6,6,6. So you, my friend, have the mark of the beast in your body!

666 “is the number of man,” and the scripture is merely revealing that he will be represented by a man, (or men.)

Don’t be a Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobiac!

 

[46AND2]

And why does your interlocutor get to divide by one million to get a number that "equals Saturn". Shouldn't 93 million equal Saturn?

And why English? I vote we check for significance by checking against Hindi.

And why the imperial measurement system? All but 3 countries in the world use metric.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And why the imperial measurement system? All but 3 countries in the world use metric.

But ... but ... but the beauty of furlongs and fortnights.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Want more proof that Globe Earth is a deception from Satan?

Want more proof that Globe Earth is a deception from Satan?

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Because Globe Earth is not biblical and a deception from Satan which is what this thread is about

In addition to the concrete evidence that the Bible refers to the earth as a globe... in the LXX manuscript, which predates the KJV be 1,800 years, the word that the Hebrew scribes used to translate scripture into Greek (for Greek-speaking Jews), was the word gyro, which means, “to turn/spin.”

What this reveals is that Hebrew scholars translated “sphere” from Hebrew into “spinning” in Greek. Why? Because they knew the earth was a SPINNING SPHERE!

 

[RickardoHolmes]

Interesting that this thread came up. My old lady and I were talking about the rise of Flat Earth theory. I had heard but not read about how it is returning. I mentioned that the last time I heard someone say that the earth was flat was as a child in the baptist church where I grew up. We had a lot of very uneducated people there, one particularly dim teacher who was elderly did tell us that the earth is flat. By then I already knew better and wrote off his comments to western/christian ignorance. Of course I heard it from a few other adults too, but again, not the brightest or most educated of the populace, but those whom thrived on the mythology and control b the church.

Funny, I never gave it much thought until now.

What I see is a growing level of anti-intellectualism in America. It is being encouraged and incited by the President, who loves to troll intellectuals as evidenced by his mishandling of the Covid 19 Crisis. Almost like he is saying "Hey, I am ignorant, you are ignorant, let's all be ignorant together" This gives those who lack any knowledge of science, physics, astronomy, geography or any sense of rational intellectual bearing a forum to spout off unsound ideas.

Worse even is misinterpretation of mythology to point to a flat earth. yes, flat earth was a theory in Biblical times, but since Copernicus, Galileo, Vespucci and Magellan, we know now that the earth IS a sphere, orbiting the sun, and we know now that our earth is not, nor ever was, flat.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

flat earth was a theory in Biblical times,

Perhaps some theorized it in “biblical times,” but not in the Bible, itself. Isaiah 40:22, in the oldest known manuscript, uses a word that literally describes a sphere. English translations use “circle,” which is a word that can have different interpretations. To further the Bible’s teaching of a globe earth, the Septuagint, translated about two centuries before Christ, uses the Greek word gyro, which literally means “to turn/spin.” They obviously knew in 200 BC and at least as far back as 750 BC that the earth was a spinning globe. True, many “religious” people were ignorant of the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek language and could only depend on the teachings of poor English translations.

I find it both fascinating and disturbing that churches have, and still do, teach flat earth...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps some theorized it in “biblical times,” but not in the Bible, itself. Isaiah 40:22, in the oldest known manuscript, uses a word that literally describes a sphere. English translations use “circle,” which is a word that can have different interpretations. To further the Bible’s teaching of a globe earth, the Septuagint, translated about two centuries before Christ, uses the Greek word gyro, which literally means “to turn/spin.” They obviously knew in 200 BC and at least as far back as 750 BC that the earth was a spinning globe. True, many “religious” people were ignorant of the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek language and could only depend on the teachings of poor English translations.

I find it both fascinating and disturbing that churches have, and still do, teach flat earth...

The true meaning of "gyro":

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps some theorized it in “biblical times,” but not in the Bible, itself. Isaiah 40:22, in the oldest known manuscript, uses a word that literally describes a sphere. English translations use “circle,” which is a word that can have different interpretations. To further the Bible’s teaching of a globe earth, the Septuagint, translated about two centuries before Christ, uses the Greek word gyro, which literally means “to turn/spin.” They obviously knew in 200 BC and at least as far back as 750 BC that the earth was a spinning globe. True, many “religious” people were ignorant of the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek language and could only depend on the teachings of poor English translations.

I find it both fascinating and disturbing that churches have, and still do, teach flat earth...

That is not quite correct.
Both the hebrew "chug" as well as the greek "gyro" have the base meaning of "something that goes around". From that, it can have the meanings that you mentioned, but these are not exclusive, and both these terms can have the meaning of "circle".

More likely it was used in the basic meaning, or the general figurative derivation of that: "the surrounding". That either of these terms was used for their geometrical meaning is rather unlikely.
And it was in the same way that the english term was used... in a figurative sense, not a geometrical one. In the early 17th century, the spherical form of the earth was not in question, and still the translators chose to use this specific term.
I dare say they did so because they understood it was the best english representation for the original terms... and yet did not imply a problematic geometrical claim.

So Isaiah 40:22 isn't real a good indicator for the old hebrew cosmology. In fact, few bible verses are... the geometrical form of the earth is a topic that is never directly addressed in the bible.
There are indicators that the Hebrews adopted (and adapted) the babylonian cosmology - the most precise of its time, but never expanded on it, because it simply wasn't a question of interest for the authors of the texts.