The earth is Flat!!!

[logicboy]

[tjm220]

On 2003-01-09 11:49, logicboy wrote:

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz

Let him try, with any luck maybe he will fall off the edge. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tjm220 on 2003-01-09 13:26 ]</font>

[calliarcale]

I've never found a passage in the Bible which specifically describes the Earth as flat. However, it was a widespread belief at the time -- for the Bible to mention it would be rather like commenting about how wet the ocean can be. It would be an expression of simple common sense, or at least of what was common sense at the time. We still tend to think of the Earth as flat; I think we may even be biologically wired to do this, because it is a convenient approximation for the purposes of everyday navigation. Why else are we so fond of globes, and why do people have such a hard time with non-Euclidean geometry? Because we think two-dimensionally. Maybe it's because our only true navigational organs are our semicircular canals -- we can detect "down" but we can't detect any other direction, so we grow up believing very deeply that "down" is some sort of absolute rather than a relative value.

Of course, there had to have been people in those days who realized that the Earth was round and that it went around the Sun. Ancient sites such as Stonehenge suggest a rudimentary understanding of orbital mechanics, though the knowledge seemed to be pretty hodgepodge; most cultures either didn't know it or didn't preserve it and thus lost it. Seafaring cultures probably worked it out; anybody who sails on the open sea has got to realize that the Earth is round. (You get a perfect horizon on the ocean, after all, so you can see things appear over the edge of it. This was actually how Greek philosophers realized that the Earth was round even before Eratosthenes made his remarkably close estimation of the Earth's diameter.)

By Roman times, it was common knowledge that the Earth was round, at least in educated circles. In Judea, it would not have been a particularily wide-spread notion, but anybody with a Roman education would know. The earliest Christians were Jewish, but after the Jewish rebellion of 70AD, that changed -- the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem as punishment, and they became widely scattered. Christians began converting gentiles, mostly Greeks and Romans. Especially *educated* Greeks and Romans. It is probably from this that the medieval Christian world-view arose. This is the view portrayed in Dante Aligheri's "Divine Comedy" -- he did *not* invent it, and it was already fairly common. The Earth was a sphere, divided in half. The top half was divided into four quarters, upon which humanity lived. (The bottom half was different.) Now, early medieval Christians were very literal when it came to the Bible. But they knew that the world was round. So they interpreted the phrase "four corners of the Earth" to mean the four cardinal points. The north "corner" would be the point where the northwest and northeast quadrants came together. The east "corner" would be the point where the northeast and southeast quadrants came together, and so on. At the center, where the four quadrants joined, was Jerusalem, the holy city. This imagery is preserved in the globes that kings would carry as part of their royal apparel (at least for portraits or very important events). The technical term for these globes escapes me at the moment -- if you've seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", they look exactly like the Holy Handgrenade. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] The cross at the top indicates Jerusalem. The top part of the sphere usually has the quadrants marked off by four metal spokes and a metal circlet around the "equator", usually riveted on and often encrusted with jewels. The significant thing is that it represents the world and God's divine authority, which was then passed down to Holy Roman Emperors, Popes, and local kings to do the actual administration of God's will. (Don't blame me; that's how the medieval Christians perceived things. Kings were believed to have a *divine right* to rule.)

If you dug down through the top part of this globe, you would reach Hell. If you dug further, you would come out the other side. When that side is perceived as the top, you find the Other Jerusalem, sort of an idealized version of the Holy City, and a mountain. If you climb the mountain, you travel through Purgatory. At the top, you can keep climbing up into the circles of Heaven, which actually encircle the entire world. The Sun, the Moon, and the various planets all orbit in these circles, and one of them has the celestial sphere on it. If memory serves, you have to go further than that to get to God in the outermost sphere. My memory may be slightly muddled on this; I found it a touch confusing. Read "The Divine Comedy" for the details. Dante gets them right, and I probably don't. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] One of the additional reasons they believed in a round Earth was because it fit nicely with their symmetrical sensibilities. If Heaven was a series of concentric shells, then it made sense that Earth would be a sphere at the center of it all.

So medieval Christians did believe in a geocentric world, and it was pretty much a religious belief; people were actually executed for suggeting otherwise. The Bible doesn't really go into a lot of detail on the nature of the Universe, but the medieval Christian scholars worked hard to wring as much meaning out of the Bible as they possibly could. So if it only mentioned seven planets, then by God, that's all there were! Even if the Bible didn't actually say there weren't more. What the Bible said was, well, gospel. Lots of debate was done on the details to work out exactly what the Bible was *really* saying, and it resulted in some very strange interpretations of the Bible. (Just try researching hierarchies of angels if you want to see how far they took all this Biblical analysis in what scientists would consider a glaring lack of data.)

At some point along the way (relatively recently), some Christians, probably not associated with any of the more organized branches of Christianity (particularily Catholocism), started to think that the Earth was flat, and that the Bible was proof of it. These are people who are not only scientifically illiterate but theologically illiterate as well. They've started their own ridiculously literal interpretation of the Bible from scratch. While this may not be entirely a bad thing (the overly-literal medieval Catholic dogma got downright silly at times and outright lethal at others) it certainly hasn't proved to be a good thing in this particular case.

[calliarcale]

I forgot to add this in my last post....

On 2003-01-09 11:49, logicboy wrote:

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz

I wonder how one of Saudi Arabia's royal family felt about that particular fatwa. After all, one of them very definitely believes that the Earth is round. His name is Sultan Salman Abdulaziz Al-Saud, and he flew aboard the space shuttle Discovery in 1985, tending the ARABSAT-1B payload. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[Silas]

Calliarcale: a very good summation; I don't disagree with any of it.

Is the term "orb," as in "orb and scepter," for the "holy hand grenade" like thing that kings handled? Or is there a fancier term?

Ah, Dante! What an incredible writer! The theological odyssey he describes is astonishing for how ahead of its time it is. I often suggest (only half joking!) that his work ought to be appended to the Bible as "revealed truth."

Silas

[Cloudy]

RickNZ

I never said there was no rascism in Europe prior to Hitler(1940s).

I said that prior to what historians call modern times (pre 1700's) there was not much rascism in Europe. There was persecution on the grounds of religion and political affiliation, but persecution on the grounds of race was rare. If you were willing to convert to Christianity - being a Jew was no longer any disadvantage to you. Once religion started to lose importance in society - race gradually became more important as a marker for persecution. By Hitler's time whether you were baptized or not did not matter.

The main thrust of my remarks in that post was that rascism has rarely been based on religion as such, at least in western civilization. In the modern European-based civilization (post 1700's) it has usualy been justified in terms of politics or science. If you go by what the rascists themselves have said, it makes far more sense to blame science than religion for rascism. This goes double for the most extreme kinds of rascism. Not that legitimate science gives any support for rascism - it doesn't.

[Cloudy]

Silas, et. al..

Like others have said, there are many evidences that the Israelites could have used to determine the world is round. And some other ancient peoples appear to have done so. I'm not assuming an unneducated guess. To assume, in the absence of documentation, that they thought it was flat seems a bit prejudiced against them. It used to be thought that they could not read or write either, before the exile.

Underestimating people in the past is one habit professors have to drill out of the heads of undergraduate history students. I should know...thats what I have my degree in. We still don't have a really plausible explanation for how the stones used to build the Pyramids were moved - this same prejudice against the past leads some to conclude from this that there must have been some alien technology or supernatural intervention. I don't think so. Just because we can't think of a way to build it with muscle alone doesnt mean they couldn't of either.

As for electroplating....this is not theory but is a technique in common use today. As to whether the Pharoahs used it - this sounds possible but I'm not sure there is any real evidence of that theory. They of course would have kept it pretty well secret, writting it down would defeat the purpose. This is especially true since the ancients comonly memorized allot more than we do today - they would not have had to write it down in order to be confident of keeping the technology. Theories of "Ancient Astronauts" etc. are unlikely because there would have likely been some archeological evidence of a civilization that advanced. Unless it dissapeared under the waves. Even then, we should have found something by now.

Dante lovers may be surprised that critical thinking about society and human nature is also pretty darn old. You'll find allot of it in Proverbs and Ecclesiesties. In fact, allot of the old testement prophets accuse the Israelites of being...

1. Hypocrites in that they worship God while disobeying his teachings about their fellow human beings (I desire mercy...not sacrifice, said one prophet).

2. Lovers of luxury and comfort gained at the expense of others.

3. Liars and cheats.

4. Enslavers of the poor.

Amos is a good book to read for some colorfull language [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]. There is even some that would be obscene if translated honestly. The writers of the Hebrew Bible were all Israelites and almost to a man they make Israel look pretty awfull. There is not a single Jewish leader (except perhaps Joshua) who is not portrayed with significant shortcommings. Sometimes even in comparison with other nations, the Israelites look bad. Look at the book of Johah, for example.

The thing that is unique about Dante is his literary style. His content in both religion and science, as well as his social commentary, is not unique at all and many other writers from far earlier times have tackled similar themes

[nebularain]

On 2003-01-10 05:39, Cloudy wrote:
As for electroplating....this is not theory but is a technique in common use today. As to whether the Pharoahs used it - this sounds possible but I'm not sure there is any real evidence of that theory.

Cloudy - when Moses was given the instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, wasn't he told to use a certain kind of wood (I forget the specific type that was mentioned) and "overlay it with gold"? Obviously, domeone in the company had to know how to do this for God to have given the command for it, and since the Israelites had just come out of Egypt, it stands to reason it was learned there - right?

[Rich]

But you don't to use electro-plating to put gold overlays or leafing on something.

I don't remember much about the Egyptians and electro-plating, but I do know the Meso-Americans were capable of it. The important thing to keep in mind is that you don't need batteries or another external source of electricity for the process to work.

It's been a while since I studied it, but I believe the process the Aztecs used was to place object they wanted to plate in a kind of chemical bath. The bath produced a current which pull gold ions from shavings placed into the bath onto other metalic objects placed in the bath.

The process they used did create a kind of rudimentary battery. And electro-plating of this kind allows very thin layers of gold to be placed on very delicate objects. Which is why the Europeans were so impressed with the quality of the Aztec workmanship. The down side is that since this kind of plating is so thin it wears off easily (as anyone who has gotten cheap, plated jewelry can tell you).

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2003-01-10 10:21, nebularain wrote:

On 2003-01-10 05:39, Cloudy wrote:
As for electroplating....this is not theory but is a technique in common use today. As to whether the Pharoahs used it - this sounds possible but I'm not sure there is any real evidence of that theory.

Cloudy - when Moses was given the instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, wasn't he told to use a certain kind of wood (I forget the specific type that was mentioned) and "overlay it with gold"? Obviously, domeone in the company had to know how to do this for God to have given the command for it, and since the Israelites had just come out of Egypt, it stands to reason it was learned there - right?

Are you talking about electroplating wood?

On 2003-01-10 22:36, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2003-01-10 10:21, nebularain wrote:
[quote] On 2003-01-10 05:39, Cloudy wrote:

Briefly ... I did make it into the Lab at 12:34
"the Gravity wave detector "IS" gone"
{link to tails}
2

[kilopi]

On 2003-01-08 15:55, Silas wrote:
Okay, that's fair. It's entirely possible that there were small, isolated groups of people, whose writings are not known to us, who figured out nifty things a bit ahead of their time.

However, that's an "argument from ignorance." There might have been such people...but we don't know about them, for the obvious reason: their writings haven't survived.

A lot of writings haven't survived, but we still know what they thought and taught. The pythagoreans, for instance. So, just what is the evidence that those ancient peoples thought the world was flat? How convincing is it?

[calliarcale]

On 2003-01-10 10:21, nebularain wrote:

On 2003-01-10 05:39, Cloudy wrote:
As for electroplating....this is not theory but is a technique in common use today. As to whether the Pharoahs used it - this sounds possible but I'm not sure there is any real evidence of that theory.

Cloudy - when Moses was given the instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, wasn't he told to use a certain kind of wood (I forget the specific type that was mentioned) and "overlay it with gold"? Obviously, domeone in the company had to know how to do this for God to have given the command for it, and since the Israelites had just come out of Egypt, it stands to reason it was learned there - right?

Sounds like gold leaf to me. This was definitely known in Moses' time, because the Egyptians put gold leaf on wooden carvings routinely. The process is time-consuming but is purely a matter of beating the gold as thin as possible and then carefully molding it to the carving by tapping it with a brush. At least, that's the way it looks -- I've seen it done, but I've never tried it myself. It usually requires a fair bit of maintenance, because the gold flakes off with wear. But you can get a lovely solid-gold appearance without all the expense and sheer weight.

There's a free online Bible at the University of Virginia. I used it to look up the relevant passage (RSV translation):

"They shall make an ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. And you shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark by them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you. "

This is Exodus Ch 25, verses 10-16. It's part of a http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...larger chapter about the Lord's tabernacle that He wants built. Acacia wood with gold leaf seems to be a significant theme.

[Hypatia]

Interesting thread... but you guys forgot one detail about the Bible.
Non-literalists can see human fallibility in the Bible: people wrote from their own limited knowledge.
Literalist believe the Bible was the dictated, or at least inspired, Word of God. And HE would know if the world He created is flat or round.
That is the crux of the Falt-Earthers (and other Literalists) insistence that science is wrong. It says that God was wrong when He desribed the natural world to the authors of the Bible. So they are determined that the natural world MUST match the Bilical descriptions. Science be damned (literally!)

[Vermonter]

I would take it with a grain of salt. If they wish to believe that the world is Flat like a pizza pie, then by George Orwell it is Flat. Just to them, of course.

To the rest of us who believe and have overwhemlingly strong evidence that the world is spherical and is not all that special (except in our own solar system), then we could just say "That's nice...go play in your sandbox" and pat them on the head.

People will come around eventually.

[SiriMurthy]

On 2002-10-02 23:36, g99 wrote:
I wonder what is would be like if we did live on a flat earth? What would the other sidfe be like? A mirror universe of the side you are on? ...

Huh, what do you mean? How can there be anyone on the other side of the flat earth?

Don't you understand that they would all fall off due to gravity? Think, man, think.

(I am sorry, this is not even funny anymore. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img])

How stupid can one get, even to this day, to think that earth is flat? My 4 year old has a better understanding about earth being spherical.

[SiriMurthy]

Let's conside this:

If the earth is flat, since the "east half" of the flat earth is heavily populated, the weight of all those people should cause the flat earth to lower down on that end, in which case, the whole flat earth becomes a gaint slide.

Then everybody would slide and fall off.

Also, has anyone seen huge walls to keep all ocean waters in place on this flat earth?

[Dickenmeyer]

On 2003-03-13 13:24, SiriMurthy wrote:
Also, has anyone seen huge walls to keep all ocean waters in place on this flat earth?

No, you don't understand, the crystal dome of the sky is attached to the flat earth.
You can see through it. Which really means earth is a giant snowglobe.

[GENIUS'02]

night is just a huge blanket drawn over us every 12 ish hours on average, ofcourse to keep you non-believers happy we open our refrigeratiors for you for winter and we pull the blanket over much earlier and take it off later, in summer the opposite we leave it off as much as possible. thank us!!!

ps this was a sarcastic post, these 'people'(inverted commas because they have no intelligence they just look like us)

[AstroMike]

Go to http://www.connect.to/flat

[tracer]

On 2002-09-29 23:24, Silas wrote:
You know, I actually joined "The International Flat Earth Research Society" (Charles Johnson's group, now run after his death by his wife Marjorie.)

Wait a minute ... that can't be right.

Look at the postscript from Robert Schadewald's article on the International Flat Earth Society:

"Postscript: Much has changed since I wrote this article, both in the world at large and in Charles Johnson's life. In late September 1995, the Johnsons' venerable high-desert home caught fire. Charles managed to pull Marjory, by then a semi-invalid on supplemental oxygen, to safety, but everything else in the house was destroyed--their personal possessions, the Flat Earth Society library and archives, the membership list, everything. Having no fire insurance, the Johnsons were unable to rebuild. A dilapidated old house trailer, bought as a storage shed, survived the fire, and they took refuge there. A few months later, Marjory fell and broke a hip. She survived hip replacement surgery but never recovered her strength. On May 16, 1996, she died."

[DaveOlden]

On 2003-03-14 21:05, AstroMike wrote:
Go to http://www.connect.to/flat

Just seemed to be people keeping the bible in the fore, until i got to the bottom of page...

"FLAT members are divided over the issue of whether the earth is a tetrahedron (see picture) or a square."

I am trying to keep a straight face here, and will vote "tetrahedron", since it looks more "spacey", to me, than a square.

[TriangleMan]

The Earth IS a terahedron, such a shape allowed life to form due to the harnessing of pyrimidal energy.

I can't beleive you didn't know that, that is fundamental triangle physics. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[kilopi]

On 2003-03-17 05:07, DaveOlden wrote:
I am trying to keep a straight face here, and will vote "tetrahedron", since it looks more "spacey", to me, than a square.

And then there's this, wherein I conclude that the Earth has a basic tetrahedral component.

[DaveOlden]

On 2003-03-17 07:05, kilopi wrote:
And then there's this, wherein I conclude that the Earth has a basic tetrahedral component.

Thanks for the link [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] One day this stuff may not be so beyond me.

Best try: the abstract seems to support that the earth is a bi-axial ellipsoid, which I take to be a slightly squashed sphere, with two axes. One magnetic and the other rotational? Or could bi-axial refer to the two extremes of a single rotational axis presessing?

Just my best guess.

I don't understand the tetrahedral component that the abstract concludes with, but I am hardly skilled to do so. So, in my ignorance, this could be made up and I wouldn't know.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveOlden on 2003-03-17 08:08 ]</font>

[kilopi]

On 2003-03-17 07:36, DaveOlden wrote:
Best try: the abstract seems to support that the earth is a bi-axial ellipsoid, which I take to be a slightly squashed sphere, with two axes. One magnetic and the other rotational? Or could bi-axial refer to the two extremes of a single rotational axis presessing?

No, bi-axial ellipsoid there is to distinguish from a tri-axial ellipsoid, which would have three axes, all of different lengths. The bi-axial ellipsoid has three axes also, but two of them have the same length.

I don't understand the tetrahedral component that the abstract concludes with, but I am hardly skilled to do so. So, in my ignorance, this could be made up and I wouldn't know.

Of course it's made up! I made it up, but it's based upon the best data NASA has.

The tetrahedral shape is one of the spherical harmonics that describe quantum orbitals. Geophysicists use them also. They're the spherical analogue to Fourier functions.

[DaveOlden]

On 2003-03-17 09:22, kilopi wrote:

On 2003-03-17 07:36, DaveOlden wrote:
Best try: the abstract seems to support that the earth is a bi-axial ellipsoid, which I take to be a slightly squashed sphere, with two axes. One magnetic and the other rotational? Or could bi-axial refer to the two extremes of a single rotational axis presessing?

No, bi-axial ellipsoid there is to distinguish from a tri-axial ellipsoid, which would have three axes, all of different lengths. The bi-axial ellipsoid has three axes also, but two of them have the same length.

I'm not clear on how you're using the term 'axis'.

Is it multiple axes of movement? Or perhaps just multiple axes of measurement? Are any of the referent axes magnetic? (Or would we stick to the tried and true term "poles" when referring to magnetic aspects?)

[kilopi]

Is it multiple axes of movement? Or perhaps just multiple axes of measurement? Are any of the referent axes magnetic? (Or would we stick to the tried and true term "poles" when referring to magnetic aspects?)

None have to do with magnetism, it's strictly mathematical. An ellipsoid has three axes (just as an ellipse has two, the major axis and the minor axis). If they are all the same length, it is a sphere. If they are all of different length, it is tri-axial. If two are the same length, and longer than the third, it is an oblate spheroid. If the two are shorter than the third one, it is prolate.

[DaveOlden]

Thanks kilopi... I think I had always assumed, then, the Earth to be an oblate spheroid.. not necessarily so then...

(need to head off now..)

[kilopi]

On 2003-03-17 10:42, DaveOlden wrote:
Thanks kilopi... I think I had always assumed, then, the Earth to be an oblate spheroid.. not necessarily so then...

O no, it is, the existence of the Marianas Trench, and Chomolungma not withstanding. The bulge at the equator due to the centrifictional force is twenty kilometers--much greater than the topographic variation. And the topographic variation is compensated--mountains have low density roots for instance--so the gravity field is smoothed out.

The tetrahedral shape (or the legendary pear-shape) are only on the order of a hundred meters. It's a small correction, barely noticeable--but important to geophysical theory, and satellite dynamics.