[__ Science __ ] This is Always Interesting

[Razeontherock]

It's an interesting phrase, to read that "the earth is immovable." Coming from that time and place it would not have nearly the same meaning as it would in a scientific discussion today.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I agree for the most part, but the "dur" could just as easily be saying tossed and turned round about when He places them in this other country wherein they will be killed. There are really only a handful of Hebrew words there and this is what I meant when I said what God might have said as opposed to what "people" say (in this case the translators) . Is the Lord making reference to the specific object (which could also be pile or circle) or to part of an incompleted action? It is hard to say...the word does not appear anywhere else to specifically refer to a "ball" (as we know such an object)...

Not saying I am right and you are wrong Jack, because clearly one can use the word khug differently as well. However when Gesenius indicated it could also be "sphere" he was not trying to make the Bible fit into science, he was merely seeing in light of the factual reality. Translating (the word firmament is also like this and even Strong separates what the word means an extension or expanse between) and what later Hebrews believe (a solid dome if you will).

Dur or Duwr.. means ball... chug or Khug means circle..

You stated that they didn't use or have a word for ball a that time. Yet he uses a word for ball in verses previous to the one where he uses a word for circle.

That's all I was saying. If he meant ball... he would have said ball.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I see that brother Paul already mentioned something on this one when it comes to the Hebrew =P but anyway, we use the concordance in order to fully understand original meanings as close as possible since these are among the Bible's original languages especially since they don't always quite translate into English.

In Isaiah 40:22 KJV it says:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The focus is what the word "circle" honestly means. The name in the Hebrew root is "chuwg", which has been found to mean circle, circuit, or compass. Circle (Isaiah 40:22), circuit (Job 22:14), and compass (Proverbs 8:27) are where this word can be found. There are others that do debate that this may be referring to the horizon in accordance with another meaning that mentions this could mean "vault (of the heavens)". In the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon is says, "A circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky; of the world". The term "sphere" is found in the definition and this is where we draw our basis that the Bible mentions the Earth as being a sphere.



This has been a fun topic to research as I haven't looked into it as deeply before, which verses disagree that the Earth has an orbit? I would like to look them up as well.



Going ahead here to Isaiah 22:18 KJV:

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

Now, looking in the concordance for the term used for "ball" we find the Hebrew word "duwr". This is a different word than "chuwg", but we can see the meaning is similar if not the same. The definition is, "A circle, ball or pile: --ball, turn, round about. Both words are different looking at the concordance (one of my favorite tools when I have misplaced my Strong's Concordance is blueletterbible.org, it's fun to use!).



No one said they were stupid goat farmers. It is that they did indeed lack the technology that we have today. The people back then were like us, just in a different time era. It wasn't that they were dumb, it was that they did not always have a Bible on hand or the technology to be able to explain why something was the way it is. People have always been people =)



While I cannot say that there is scripture that says "earth spins/tilts on an axis/orbits the sun", it is understandable why some would withdraw this conclusion with some things that are in the Bible. Here is an interesting one:

Joshua 10:13 KJV:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


How interesting - the sun stood still and the moon stayed. Something in this passage tells us that something phenomenal occured until the people had avenged themselves. The sun and moon standing still would be quite a sight. At the end of this verse in says "hested not to go down about a whole day." In this case, this is why we can assume the Bible mentions that the sun and moon follow their own orbits so why would the earth be standing still and not in motion? It's something to think about, I suppose. It's interesting that astronomy suggests if the Earth were to stop rotating that also the Earth would take an entire year to complete what the Earth does in one day (it's 24 hour cycle between day and night)

Very interesting scriptures indeed... if we take them for being God's word and truth... that make me go "hmmmm".

There are lots of sites that show anywhere from 75 to 300 verses that lead us to a flat earth concept.

It's something that I'm struggling with right now. Not ready to say the earth is flat but something with the typical model is not right.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I'm saying you appear to be unfamiliar with Scripture, and asking foolish questions.

Yours is an argument from ignorance, which is a formal logical fallacy. It's a very weak position.

Of course it is....

Carry on in your own world of "truth". I have researched more than a little bit and am far from "ignorant" of scripture in regards to what is being said about the present and historical model of the earth.

Here is a question..... why did the sun and moon stop, in scripture, if the earth stopped rotating? The moon would still continue on it's orbit.... only the sun would appear to stop..

Yet, there we have it... the sun and moon stopped for the same amount of time...This fits much more logically with the earth being the center of the orbiting moon and sun... than a spinning earth, stationary sun and orbiting moon.

 

[Razeontherock]

There are lots of sites that show anywhere from 75 to 300 verses that lead us to a flat earth concept.

Relying on websites that amalgamate proof-texts ripped from their context does not count as being led of the Lord.

It's something that I'm struggling with right now. Not ready to say the earth is flat but something with the typical model is not right.

Earth does not (only) revolve around the Sun. Once you factor in the movement of the Sun itself, you see earth moves in a much more complicated way. This is known, and understood. How it may compare with what you mean by "the typical model" is another matter.

None of it is going to explain away the miracle of God in Joshua 10.

 

[Edward]

If the earth did not rotate on it's axis then we would not have day and night.
The earth is immovable from the course it follows as it obits the sun and as the sun moves through space around the center of the galaxy.
God set that movement in motion imho

It could if the sun orbited earth...
It says immovable. Not just, on a dedicated path or orbit. I think the earth prolly don't move. And that the sun is not 93 million miles from earth either...

But I don't know that for sure. We'll find one day!

 

[Edward]

I do NOT think that earth is flat though.

I've heard several testimonies from people (YouTube) that say they were taken in spirit above the earth, and had a spiritual encounter with the Lord...and they could see the earth and talked about it...But no one has said that earth was flat or anything like that.

And that would be a notable thing, so someone would have mentioned it if it was flat. I think...lol.

 

[Razeontherock]

It could if the sun orbited earth...
It says immovable. Not just, on a dedicated path or orbit. I think the earth prolly don't move. And that the sun is not 93 million miles from earth either...

But I don't know that for sure. We'll find one day!

WHOA. The average distance from the earth to the sun is 1 au, or astronomical unit. The closest earth ever gets to Pluto is 28 au. We sent a probe there, and other probes that have crossed the bow wake our sun creates as it passes through the Milky Way.

We've found out this stuff already ...

 

[Edward]

WHOA. The average distance from the earth to the sun is 1 au, or astronomical unit. The closest earth ever gets to Pluto is 28 au. We sent a probe there, and other probes that have crossed the bow wake our sun creates as it passes through the Milky Way.

We've found out this stuff already ...

...but...but...NASA has admitted that they didn't go to the moon...The van Allen belt would wreck the craft and kill the crew...But (they say) that they're working on the technology (shielding)..because they want to go to mars.
So no probes have really made it anywhere anyway. The space program is to extort money from the American people, and to fool the Russians during the cold war.

I think NASA gets about 80 billion dollars a year (That figure may be as off as my memory...But it's a lot!
Think how much better the us would be doing if the people got to keep those billions!

 

[Razeontherock]

...but...but...NASA has admitted that they didn't go to the moon...The van Allen belt would wreck the craft and kill the crew...

No, that's disinformation. Van Allen belts do exist, but they aren't a continuous cover like a coat of paint. You're referring to the guy claiming the moon landings were all a hoax, obviously. He actually makes some good points, and it's almost certainly true that some propaganda (read: faked pics) was used to make a prettier picture, and I do feel it would've been better to leave that out and just stick with the truth.

You can locate stuff we left on the moon without even needing very advanced equipment. My nephew was interpreting data sent back from Mars - when he was in HS (bright kid)

 

[Edward]

No, that's disinformation. Van Allen belts do exist, but they aren't a continuous cover like a coat of paint. You're referring to the guy claiming the moon landings were all a hoax, obviously. He actually makes some good points, and it's almost certainly true that some propaganda (read: faked pics) was used to make a prettier picture, and I do feel it would've been better to leave that out and just stick with the truth.

You can locate stuff we left on the moon without even needing very advanced equipment. My nephew was interpreting data sent back from Mars - when he was in HS (bright kid)

No it was a NASA guy, in a NASA video, on the NASA website...

 

[Barbarian]

250bc is when Jewish Scripture was first written down according to ...

absolutely nobody

Yep. It was written down long before the circumference of the Earth was measured, ca. 250 BC. It was certainly being written by 600 BC. But as I pointed out, the Earth was known to be a globe, long before Eratosthenes measured how big it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course while there may have been some that knew, I am guessing it drew off of a well-known idea (even if it was a myth).

The myth is a modern one, invented by Washington Irving.

If you learned in school that Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain in 1492 and crossed the Atlantic Ocean, disproving a common belief in those days that the Earth was flat, then the lesson was wrong.

Historians say there is no doubt that the educated in Columbus’s day knew quite well that the Earth was not flat but round. In fact, this was known many centuries earlier.

As early as the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras — and later Aristotle and Euclid — wrote about the Earth as a sphere. Ptolemy wrote “Geography” at the height of the Roman Empire, 1,300 years before Columbus sailed, and considered the idea of a round planet as fact.

“Geography” became a standard reference, and Columbus himself owned a copy. For him, the big question was not the shape of the Earth but the size of the ocean he wanted to cross.
...
In a 1991 book, “Inventing the Flat Earth,” retired University of California professor Jeffrey Burton Russell explains how the myth was perpetuated in the 1800s by writers including Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne.

In 1828, Irving wrote “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,” which sounds like a biography but is mostly fiction. It says that Europeans learned from Columbus’s trips to the New World that the planet was round.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...0/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html?utm_term=.e61bec9cc67d

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Relying on websites that amalgamate proof-texts ripped from their context does not count as being led of the Lord.

Assuming that everything on the internet is wrong is just as bad as assuming that everything is right. The sites that I am talking about are maintained by accredited Godly men and women.

Earth does not (only) revolve around the Sun. Once you factor in the movement of the Sun itself, you see earth moves in a much more complicated way. This is known, and understood. How it may compare with what you mean by "the typical model" is another matter.

I would feel more confident with your view if there was scientific experiments that could prove it.

Fact is, none are proof of anything that cannot be explained by BOTH of the popular models.. these being the Flat and globe earth models.

None of it is going to explain away the miracle of God in Joshua 10.

If you were truly honest... would not the geocentric model make this miracle more sensible?

 

[Barbarian]

Fact is, none are proof of anything that cannot be explained by BOTH of the popular models.. these being the Flat and globe earth models.

Let's try a few ways to check this out:
First:
Explain how a Foucault pendulum works on a flat stationary Earth.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Let's try a few ways to check this out:
First:
Explain how a Foucault pendulum works on a flat stationary Earth.

Thanks, Barbarian. You and I have been down this road before. You always go to this "Foucault pendulum" answer.
It is your "go to" and I get it.

However, the Foucault Pendulum has to have a drive mechanism to keep it going. Otherwise it would stop. It is not a "perpetual motion" device. It also needs a bearing and a ball and socket type set up in order to function. There is no proof, in any way shape or form, to prove that the motivating force and bearings don't influence the pendulum. Other investigation will show that it needs some force to initiate the motion, which can influence the movement. And, the fact that it has been shown to change direction during eclipses.

So, your one and only go to is far from being sufficient to prove anything. Not to mention that there are at least three repeatable experiments that failed to show any motion. Add to that the fact that numerous other so called proofs, work with both models when all factors are considered.

So, I'll cancel your Foucault Pendulum with one of the other three, leaving two repeatable experiments that show no motion or movement.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks, Barbarian. You and I have been down this road before. You always go to this "Foucault pendulum" answer.
It is your "go to" and I get it.

It's the effective stopper. No one can explain it.

However, the Foucault Pendulum has to have a drive mechanism to keep it going.

Not very high-tech. You pull it out one way, and let it go. Gravity and inertia takes it from there. This is why you need a very large mass. Otherwise, friction brings it to a halt rather quickly.

Otherwise it would stop.

Eventually, it does. Then they pull it back again, and let it go. Thought you knew.

It is not a "perpetual motion" device.

Right. You have to pull the weight back to get it started.

It also needs a bearing and a ball and socket type set up in order to function.

Nope. You'd get the same motion if you just tied it to a beam. Of course, it wouldn't work as well, because of the friction, twisting the rope slightly.

There is no proof, in any way shape or form, to prove that the motivating force and bearings don't influence the pendulum.

Actually, there is. Engineers are quite familiar with the forces and the bearings are designed to minimally influence the results. As you might know, they get the same results as Foucault, who used a very primitive connection. This demonstrates that the forces involved are not significantly affected by the connection.

Other investigation will show that it needs some force to initiate the motion, which can influence the movement. And, the fact that it has been shown to change direction during eclipses.

You have to pull it back to start the pendulum. Otherwise, you just let go. If the Earth was stationary, the pendulum would merely swing back and forth, and not change direction precisely over time. The Allais effect needs rather sensitive instruments to detect, as it seems to affect the period of the pendulum by about one part in 2000. Since the effect also is found on torsion gravimeters, whatever does it, is related to gravitational pull that changes during eclipses. The pendulum still keeps time within the usual accuracy of the particular system, though. So that would be another point in favor of the Earth's motion.

So, your one and only go to is far from being sufficient to prove anything.

As you see, your objections fail to explain why the pendulum moves precisely as it would if the Earth was a rotating sphere. So we'll note that you failed to explain this and go on to the next problem:

2. Why can you put a larger payload into orbit with the same rocket model, if you launch it eastward, and closer to the Equator?

 

[Jacks Bratt]

It's the effective stopper. No one can explain it.



Not very high-tech. You pull it out one way, and let it go. Gravity and inertia takes it from there. This is why you need a very large mass. Otherwise, friction brings it to a halt rather quickly.

Everytime you pull on it and release it... you influence it. This is why, in archery, people are using mechanical releases instead of their fingers. I prefer traditional finger release. My buddy uses a trigger.... just to remove any variation in his release.

Same thing here. The release, direction of the pull, twist in wire or rope, mechanism it is swinging with, drag and friction,l. all will influence the pendulum.

Actually, there is. Engineers are quite familiar with the forces and the bearings are designed to minimally influence the results. As you might know, they get the same results as Foucault, who used a very primitive connection. This demonstrates that the forces involved are not significantly affected by the connection.

There are no bearings out there that will not have an affect on the swing. There will always be drag and always in an non symmetrical manner.

As you see, your objections fail to explain why the pendulum moves precisely as it would if the Earth was a rotating sphere. So we'll note that you failed to explain this and go on to the next problem:

You can note nothing as you have proven nothing.

2. Why can you put a larger payload into orbit with the same rocket model, if you launch it eastward, and closer to the Equator?

I have no way of arguing for or against such a statement. Unless you have worked on the engineering of such things, the only thing you would be telling me is hearsay.
To refresh your memory, you would be hard pressed to get me to believe anyone from NASA on such a statement.

 

[Barbarian]

Same thing here. The release, direction of the pull, twist in wire or rope, mechanism it is swinging with, drag and friction,l. all will influence the pendulum.

The cool thing is, it doesn't affect the way a Foucault pendulum works. As you just learned, Foucault's primitive linking system worked almost as well as modern low-friction links.

There are no bearings out there that will not have an affect on the swing.

And yet the pendulums all move the same way, with a very high degree of precision. How about that? Even more convincing, the time to rotate at the poles will be 24 hours, and will take longer and longer as you approach the equator. At the equator, it won't rotate at all. Again, this is impossible to explain it the Earth was flat and stationary.

There will always be drag and always in an non symmetrical manner.

And yet, they all still work. And if the Earth was flat and stationary, they wouldn't work at all.

You can note nothing as you have proven nothing.

Sorry, reality beats anyone's excuses. Since you are unable to explain why a Foucault pendulum works on a flat, stationary Earth, we'll just note the failure, and move on to the next refutation:

2. Why can you put a larger payload into orbit with the same rocket model, if you launch it eastward, and closer to the Equator?

I have no way of arguing for or against such a statement.

Eighth-grade science students can explain it, and calculate the difference, from different planets and moons. It's not that complicated. Would you like to learn how?

Unless you have worked on the engineering of such things, the only thing you would be telling me is hearsay.

It's pretty simple. The rotational velocity at the equator is added to the velocity of the rocket (depending on the angle used). That additional velocity doesn't have to be achieved by a rocket engine, meaning that for the same amount of thrust, a heavier payload can be accelerated to escape velocity. At the equator, the boost is about 409 meters/second. At Cape Canaveral, it's about 360 meters/second. If you launch westward, you have to subtract that velocity from your launch speed.

To refresh your memory, you would be hard pressed to get me to believe anyone from NASA on such a statement.

Doesn't matter. NASA didn't discover any of this. It was known before NASA existed.

So what's your answer for this one? If you can't answer that, either, we'll move on to the next reason why your belief is not realistic.

 

[Barbarian]

This time lapse is blocked, but you can hit the link to see it on You Tube.