Flat Earth: Why doesn't a Plane's altitude meter (gyroscope) pitch up and down if it's a round earth

[trunks2k]

I am reminded of Columbus and these flat earth warnings that his ships would fall off the edge of the earth. Now we're talking airplanes.

Well, that's a myth. By the time of Columbus, we knew the earth was spherical, or at least anyone with any education or need of navigating skills, i.e. sailors, did. The ancient Greeks had figured that one out. We actually had a not very far off measurement of its circumference. The concern with Columbus' plan was that sailing west to end up in the Indies would have been an incredibly long voyage across a giant ocean with no land to stop for supplies (i.e. a death sentence). Nobody knew what was out that way, and people were reluctant to fund people to go and find out. Columbus, wasn't arguing against the idea that the earth was flat, but that the earth was much smaller than what his contemporaries (correctly) thought it was. He was of course, wrong, but got incredibly lucky that there happened to be a giant land mass in the way.

 

[Xalith]

Well, that's a myth. By the time of Columbus, we knew the earth was spherical, or at least anyone with any education or need of navigating skills, i.e. sailors, did. The ancient Greeks had figured that one out. We actually had a not very far off measurement of its circumference. The concern with Columbus' plan was that sailing west to end up in the Indies would have been an incredibly long voyage across a giant ocean with no land to stop for supplies (i.e. a death sentence). Nobody knew what was out that way, and people were reluctant to fund people to go and find out. Columbus, wasn't arguing against the idea that the earth was flat, but that the earth was much smaller than what his contemporaries (correctly) thought it was. He was of course, wrong, but got incredibly lucky that there happened to be a giant land mass in the way.

That, and there's the fact that Eratosthenes was using an archaic form of measurement called the Stadia. There's two different Stadium -- Greek and Egyptian. One's significantly smaller than the other. It could be that someone reading about Eratosthenes' work assumed the wrong Stadia was used.

The Greek type would have made the Earth 16% smaller than what we now know it is, and the Egyptian type gives you an Earth that is within 1% accuracy.

I bet that Columbus was assuming Greek-type Stadia when he made the voyage. If they were using Egyptian-type Stadia and believed that there were no continents between Western Europe and Eastern Russia, I bet they would have never left the shores.

 

[ecco]

"About" 1/3? Did you somehow miss the bolded, underlined part where I said it was accurate to fifteen thousandths of an inch!? Do you have any idea how small of a number that is?

This is your post to which I responded:

Here's another "Do science!" verse:

Proverbs 25:2: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

This can be applied to the Bible itself, but there's nothing there that says you can't apply it to the rest of reality, either. It is for God's Glory that He hides things that we are still finding out today.

For example, did you know that the values of Pi and E are found int he Bible? The Value of Pi is found twice and the value of E is found once; the two instances of Pi are found in the Old Testament and wasn't discovered until the Greeks.

E (the constant used in various mathematics) wasn't discovered until the 1700s, but yet it was written by John (unknowingly) in ~90AD and was discovered recently.

Nobody knew these things, though, until we had computers that can sift through this stuff much faster than men can.

We're still finding stuff like this to this day, and each thing is yet another straw on the growing pile of hay so to speak of the evidence that the Bible was not written merely by men, but by something much higher. Yes, the books were penned by men, but they were inspired by One much higher. You're not going to tell me that a collection of 66 books written over a 2000-3000 year period that is integrated the way it is happened just by accident, lol.​

What "bolded, underlined part"?
Where did you say "accurate to fifteen thousandths of an inch!" ?

I still don't see it.

This E:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)

Actually, I'll just link you an article that says it without me having to re-type what was already typed.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/482/

This explains it quite clearly.

Oh, you are talking about numerology! I thought you were talking about math and science. But, let's see if you are just copying and pasting or if you understand what you are talking about.

When one corrects the letter values for a variation of the spelling, the 46-foot circumference of Solomon’s “molten sea” is specified to an accuracy of better than 15 thousandths of an inch!

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In Hebrew:

If you examine the numerical values of each of the Hebrew letters, and the numerical value of the words (see chart), and apply them to this formula:

The number of letters x the product of the letters
The number of words x the product of the words
​

Do the substitutions. Show the math in English. Then explain, in your own words, what the author means by "When one corrects the letter values for a variation of the spelling"​

 

[ecco]

Hi Professor,

All in all for me, that is a term of respect, and honor. So is Docotor if I ever feel compelled to use my terms for anyone.

I used Professor for you, because although I do not understand you totally, nor you me, on my part it is leaving out this or that piece of information, that you always notice, which causes me to suspect you are Professorial material, and nice also, but objective to the max.

Are you sure you are responding to the right person/post? You did not addressed me as professor.

 

[ecco]

What I did not say about my research is when I did it, I set up the controlled experiments to find out one item. Are there any true Athesits by my esoteric research definition of Atheism. (I and other researchers as a matter of course, correct the definitions of professionally used words to what they should be, or even make up new words when none exist for the item being studied or found.

That's a major error in and of itself, you don't get to define words in any way you choose. The first definition that comes up in Google is quite accurate and sufficient.


a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

But, for now, let's go on.

So Atheism was changed to "No possibility that a God exists out there, who is responsible for all of this.")
... while I searched for Atheists everywhere. ... The work finally ended. I found ZERO atheists by that definition in roughly 10 years of research.

Perhaps because your self defined wording is ambiguous. What do you mean "out there"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god exists "in here"? What do you mean by "who is responsible for all of this"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god is responsible for some of this?

By the Googled definition I am an atheist. You can drop the "so called".

Since then I have used that information mightily, and keep it under test, to make sure that I find the true number of Atheists, under that definition. Now, I still find no Atheists by that definition, but it is almost impossible, but not entirely, to work with Atheists, once I have told them of that work. I do now, since the research is done, tell eveyone, when appropriate of the results of that research project.

I called you a so-called atheist, from the results of that work, however. However, that is not all I found out about the idea of anyone who could say for certain, That there is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responsible for all of this. I found out, then, and it was before I knew that God is Real, from finding out The Bible is Real, that in all the staunchest Atheists is also the stauchest ethics.

The ethics of the most affirmed Atheists were so amazing, that if they were Christian, I would envy them on their Christianity, from their actions and words of justice and rightness in the world that they adhered to and enforced, constantly.

I did become amazed with all of them. Staunch fighters for truth and justice, and abhorrance to what is wrong was in all of them. They even voted with their feet. They left organizations and Theologies and Ideologies, which were errant to them. They did that rather than try and fit in, despite the errors of the group they were trying to fit in with.

Is there anything higher, in ethics and morality than to vote with your feet, even if those feet said attack, rather than just leave?

You found ZERO atheists and yet you were amazed with all of them. Hmmmm.

And, yes, I will "say for certain, That there is no possibility that a God exists".

 

[ecco]

Would you like to know, how you can do the work I did, to see if that book called the Bible is fiction or not, using science, so that you can do that work yourself?????????

Let's, for the sake of brevity, just discuss the OT of the christian bible. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years. One of the major developments in the evolution of humans was speech.

Speech enabled humans to pass information on from generation to generation: The best places to hunt; Which foods are safe to eat and which are poisonous; How to make weapons.

Early on, humans would have wondered about two philosophical questions: Where did we come from?; What happens to us when we die?

How would the leader of a small tribe, 100,000 ago, answer the question "Where did we come from"? Have you ever heard a leader answer an important question with "I don't know"? "GodDidIt" is a much better answer.

All the above became the basis for what would eventually be written in stories.

So, no. I do not need your assistance for understanding the bible.

 

[ecco]

You should really check out a documentary called "patterns of evidence: Exodus" directed by Tim Mahoney. Ironically, one of his best colleagues in the search is an atheist. Very interesting and eye opening.

Thanks, but no thanks.

The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that Exodus story originated not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with hisChosen People, Israel.[15] Nevertheless, although the exodus story is primarily theological, it is a theology telling how the Israelites' bondage and salvation, and the covenant with their God and its fulfillment, all took place in history.​

Actually there is more numerous and recent documents and manuscripts for the Bible than any of the ancient works like Socrates and Plato.

Your point?

They had knowledge, they lacked technology. There are structures from ancient times that we cannot figure out today.

Name one.

Some may say that the human race has forgotten more in the past than we know today.

Who says and what do they say?

 

[Xalith]

Do the substitutions. Show the math in English. Then explain, in your own words, what the author means by "When one corrects the letter values for a variation of the spelling"

When he said that, he's talking about 1 Kings 7:23 and Pi, wherein the Bible says a 10-cubit wide bowl had a 30-cubit circumference which is obviously wrong, BUT, the word normally used for circumference, qav is actually spelled "qaveh" in the original text of that particular verse. Adding the "heh" on the end of qav adds +5 to the numerical values of the letters (q=100, v=6, h=5).

That's the "variation of spelling" being referred to. When you take that into account, you modify the circumference by a ratio of 111/106 and you get the measurement that is "within 15 thousandths of an inch" assuming that 1 Cubit = 15 Inches which is well within the 14-18 inches that most scholars agree on what a Cubit was.

He's not saying "corrects the letter values for a variation in spelling" in reference to Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

 

[katerinah1947]

Let's, for the sake of brevity, just discuss the OT of the christian bible. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years. One of the major developments in the evolution of humans was speech.

Speech enabled humans to pass information on from generation to generation: The best places to hunt; Which foods are safe to eat and which are poisonous; How to make weapons.

Early on, humans would have wondered about two philosophical questions: Where did we come from?; What happens to us when we die?

How would the leader of a small tribe, 100,000 ago, answer the question "Where did we come from"? Have you ever heard a leader answer an important question with "I don't know"? "GodDidIt" is a much better answer.

All the above became the basis for what would eventually be written in stories.

So, no. I do not need your assistance for understanding the bible.

Hi,

I have read all of these posts. If I am right this is the most important part of all of those:

Your understanding of the Bible is correct, and you don't want my assistance.

You are most assuredly not a Professor type and I made an error there.

You most certainly are my first atheist who can say for himself, that there is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responsible for all of this, meaning you, me and this earth and this universe, both the parts that we can see and the parts that we cannot see. There is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responisible, rather it is all due to something else, but not a God.

LOVE,

 

[ecco]

When he said that, he's talking about 1 Kings 7:23 and Pi, wherein the Bible says a 10-cubit wide bowl had a 30-cubit circumference which is obviously wrong, BUT, the word normally used for circumference, qav is actually spelled "qaveh" in the original text of that particular verse. Adding the "heh" on the end of qav adds +5 to the numerical values of the letters (q=100, v=6, h=5).

That's the "variation of spelling" being referred to.

Show the original and revised texts.

When you take that into account, you modify the circumference by a ratio of 111/106 and you get the measurement that is "within 15 thousandths of an inch" assuming that 1 Cubit = 15 Inches which is well within the 14-18 inches that most scholars agree on what a Cubit was.

He's not saying "corrects the letter values for a variation in spelling" in reference to Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

From...
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-long-was-the-original-cubit/

The length of a cubit was based on the distance from the elbow to the fingertips, so it varied between different ancient groups of people. Here are some samples from Egypt, Babylon, and ancient Israel:

Culture Inches (centimeters)
Hebrew (short) 17.5 (44.5)
Egyptian 17.6 (44.7)
Common (short) 18 (45.7)
Babylonian (long) 19.8 (50.3)
Hebrew (long) 20.4 (51.8)
Egyptian (long) 20.6 (52.3)​

I don't see 15 in there at all.


Where's the math?

The number of letters x the product of the letters
The number of words x the product of the words

Substitute the values and show the math.

 

[ecco]

I have read all of these posts. If I am right this is the most important part of all of those:
Your understanding of the Bible is correct, and you don't want my assistance.

Unless you can show that my scenario for the origins of creation stories is incorrect.

You are most assuredly not a Professor type and I made an error there.

I never said or indicated I was. Your assumption was wrong.

You most certainly are my first atheist who can say for himself, that there is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responsible for all of this, meaning you, me and this earth and this universe, both the parts that we can see and the parts that we cannot see. There is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responisible, rather it is all due to something else, but not a God.

There you go again, imposing your own ambiguous definition and drawing your own conclusions based on ambiguity. Not very professorial.

Even though you said "I have read all of these posts", I guess I need to repeat:

Perhaps because your self defined wording (of atheist) is ambiguous. What do you mean "out there"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god exists "in here"? What do you mean by "who is responsible for all of this"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god is responsible for some of this?
​

Maybe you should address my questions before continuing to make unwarranted conclusions.

 

[katerinah1947]

There you go again, imposing your own ambiguous definition and drawing your own conclusions based on ambiguity. Not very professorial.

Even though you said "I have read all of these posts", I guess I need to repeat:

Perhaps because your self defined wording (of atheist) is ambiguous. What do you mean "out there"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god exists "in here"? What do you mean by "who is responsible for all of this"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god is responsible for some of this?
​

Maybe you should address my questions before continuing to make unwarranted conclusions.

Hi,

Do you want to discuss my definition of atheism used in that study, or are you fine with the way things are now?

LOVE,

 

[Gene2memE]

Lots of people are Scientists. Almost no Scientist knows it all or has it all correct either. I know, I worked in the field.

You worked in the field of science?

The. Field. Of. Science.

Do tell...

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi morse86,

What is your view now, on the flat earth item? I would like to leave, but only if we are done, discussing your views as this is really your thread and no one else's.

I am sure by now, you know that I have found in my research studies of The Bible, carried out in the same way my professional studies were carried out, that I have found no disagreements in what God actually meant, and what Science also says is true.

If we are done, I would like to know.

Thank-you,
LOVE,
...Mary Katerina., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

You worked in the field of science?

The. Field. Of. Science.

Do tell...

Hi,

Semiconductors. Fairchild Research and Developement Labs in Los Altos California. Avantek Research and Development, with an emphasis on Ion Implantation. It was my specialty by then. Hewlett Packard, Deer Creek Labs, again in Semiconductors. Hewlett Packard Applied Physics Lab.

Primarily I worked multidisciplinarily with a EE backgound but a Semiconductor Emphasis.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You worked in the field of science?

The. Field. Of. Science.

Do tell...

Hi,

Oops! I was a little frazzled and thought I was responding to someone else. Let me answer this again, for you.

Yes,

I worked primarily in those Device Physics types of things, starting out with a BSEE equivalent type of background that was supposed to be a full EE within three monts of my starting work.

Anyway the year was 1969, when I started work. And yes I did work with people who actually worked with Schokly of Schockly Labs. It was great, and I never knew I was a researcher, but after years and years of working, they all convinced me I was.

One of my favorite projects, but there were lots of them like recrystallizing poly silicon into single crystal silicon to build devices upon devices vertically, was to merely show the Production department that a diode which depended upon a pure Aluminum Silicon interface was in fact approaching a normal doped diode, because of transfers of silicon in and out of the alumimum, as the grain size of the aluminum approached zero.

I liked that, because of the interconnectivity of disciplines, such as vacuum, material science and even some chemistry in the form of the interfacial oxide being a hydroxide. I liked it also, becuase it was so subtle. Who would of thought that they had the perfect conditions of heating by infrared lamps, which open silicon is transparent to, but oxide and hydroixides are not, such that the open areas were cool enough during vapor deposition of aluminum to instantly freeze the incoming aluminum vapor, thus allowing it no time to settle and become large crystals of aluminum. I also liked it because they needed the answer so badly. I did not like crossing so many fields, nor going into a new field, metal depositions. They insisted though, and it turns out they were rigth in doing so, for the previous team, did not find the cause, of the .27 forward breakdown voltage, approaching ever higher and higher values, when the metal of the diodes looked shiny in the microscope.

Why did you ask?????

LOVE,

 

[JacksBratt]

Thanks, but no thanks.

The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"​

That is exactly what this guy finds out.... until he is guided by a wise man, who happens to be an atheist, to look at the right period of time. Very interesting. There is evidence if you look under the right rocks.

Of course , you can ignore truth. It doesn't make it go away though.

The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that Exodus story originated not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with hisChosen People, Israel.[15] Nevertheless, although the exodus story is primarily theological, it is a theology telling how the Israelites' bondage and salvation, and the covenant with their God and its fulfillment, all took place in history.

But, what if there is actual proof in the sands of time and history? If there is proof, you cannot just deny facts.​

Your point?

You said the OT was stories, past down over generations. We believe the writings of Socrates and Plato yet the Bible transcripts were recorded in short periods of time, not passed down from generation to generation.

Name one.

Sacsayhuamán (or Saksaywaman), outskirts of Cusco, Peru, the former capital of the Inca Empire. Clear evidence that technology not invented for thousands of years was used in the construction.

The Nazca Lines – etched into a high plateau in Peru’s Nazca Desert, a series of ancient designs stretching more than 50 miles has baffled archaeologists for decades.

Trilithon at Baalbeck
Temple of Jupiter Baal in Baalbek, Lebanon, was created to be the largest religious complex in the Roman empire. However, the most impressive parts of this site are just about hidden from view beneath and behind the ruined remains of the temple itself are three massive stone block called the trilithon. These 3 massive stones are what are curently baffling scientest around the globe. Trilithon at Baalbeck stones are the largest building blocks ever used by any human beings anywhere in the world. Each one is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weighs approximately 800 tons. Beneath the trilithon at Baalbeck are another six huge building blocks, each 35 feet long and are still bigger than most building blocks used by humans anywhere else. No one knows how these stone blocks were cut, transported from the nearby quarry, and fit so precisely together. Another mystery of ancient architecture time that Science is still trying to explain.

Puma Punku


The ruins of Puma Punku are one of the structures in the ancient city of Tiahuanaco. It is highly unlikely that any of the stones in Puma Punku were cut using ancient stone cutting techniques, at least not those that we are aware of. The stones in Puma Punku are made up of granite, and diorite,which means the only known material to be able to cut these stones would be diamond. As far as most science historians know, the ancient people of these cities did not have diamond tipped tools nor have any been found at any of the sites at Tiahuanaco. The megalithic stones at Puma punku are very large with one even weighing in at aprroximately 800 tons!. The nearest location to quarry these rocks to Pumu Punku is about 10 miles away. Just how exactly did these ancient people move these massive stones? Not only were these stones really hard to cut, but they are also extremely heavy.

 

[katerinah1947]

You worked in the field of science?

The. Field. Of. Science.

Do tell...

Hi,

Can I guess that you work in the field of Molecular Biology from your online name?

LOVE,

 

[ecco]

Hi,

Do you want to discuss my definition of atheism used in that study, or are you fine with the way things are now?

LOVE,

I've already stated that your self defined wording of atheist is ambiguous. What do you mean "out there"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god exists "in here"? What do you mean by "who is responsible for all of this"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god is responsible for some of this?

You haven't responded to the points I raised. If you want to address them, OK.

 

[katerinah1947]

I've already stated that your self defined wording of atheist is ambiguous. What do you mean "out there"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god exists "in here"? What do you mean by "who is responsible for all of this"? Does that mean that an atheist must accept the possibility that a god is responsible for some of this?

You haven't responded to the points I raised. If you want to address them, OK.

Hi,

I have a some troubles understanding you. I am sorry for that, and take all the blame, if I am allowed to.

I am guessing from above that your answer was yes, you would like to discuss some more about some things. First I will try and adress your questions here and all of them.

-By out there, I mean and meant, in the black void of the universe, that is poplulated by start and primarily blackness. I mean out there geopraphically. I mean as opposed to God inside of us, or inside of all the matter we see. I meant, to all those I quizzed that apart from our reality, can you say that a god (uncapitalized), is not responsible for the planet existing, you existing, and even the desks and typewriters my first candidate was sitting at.

-Must has no part of the research. Acceptance has no part of that research. It was a study, in which I did not know the answer. I wanted to find out.

-Some of this is not stated for a reason. The reason was it did not fit the study. I imagine, that if I ask everyone in the universe, without first telling them why they were being asked the question, some might say, that some is all they consider.

-Did I address your points or not? I hope so, but I realize that I may have failed. If I have not, and you would like me to try again, Please. I would do that, willingly.

LOVE,