Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
What time zone are you in? I could probably skype around 9MST on most days.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:37 pmI'll skype with you, I'm off to work here shortly though.
"It is what it is", is very apropos. Why is that? Because it reflects the fact that the heliocentric model is based on empirical observations that are very well described by mathematics/physics, to the point that it is a predictive model.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:46 pmI'll overlook the "is what it is" retort, because who can complete with that right? Lol.
Steady state still employs an outward expansion and the same orbital mechanics.
It is true. I can't list them by memory, but the vast majority adhered to the same Hebrew cosmological view of a dome over a flat earth resting on pillars. If you look at the historical pictographs, you'll see astonishingly similar worldviews.jmack wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 4:54 pm
That’s not true, we were taught a falsehood that Columbus was the only one who thought the earth was round, some peasants didn't know this, but it's the basis for navigation for eons and those who traveled 1,000s of miles knew this and also knew how to navigate by the stars, along with this knowledge. Pilots know the earth is round and this is used for flight as well.
Geocentric in that context does not presuppose a flat earth. Rather which globe is the center for the various orbits. The greeks thought that the world was a sphere while developing their geocentric models.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:55 pmIt is true. I can't list them by memory, but the vast majority adhered to the same Hebrew cosmological view of a dome over a flat earth resting on pillars. If you look at the historical pictographs, you'll see astonishingly similar worldviews.jmack wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 4:54 pm
That’s not true, we were taught a falsehood that Columbus was the only one who thought the earth was round, some peasants didn't know this, but it's the basis for navigation for eons and those who traveled 1,000s of miles knew this and also knew how to navigate by the stars, along with this knowledge. Pilots know the earth is round and this is used for flight as well.
Your navigation references don't come into play, because navigation works on both models. Many astronomers and astrophysicists have admitted that the rotation of the stars fits a heliocentric and geocentric model and that one can't tell which it is through simple observation.
No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:24 pmSo let's resort to the Pearl of Great Price if you care to respond to my description above of it's cosmology.
larsenb wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2019, 12:01 am I've also seen most of the planets through telescopes, including their moons. Jupiter comes to mind. You can see that Jupiter spins on an axis. The order of our solar system is orbicular/spherical planets and moons that follow elliptical orbits around the sun or their parent planets. I'm just not seeing any flat-type 'planets' . . . nor is anybody else.
I'm in Arizona. That's 9 am right? What about tomorrow morning? Perhaps we should private message anything further.braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:39 pmWhat time zone are you in? I could probably skype around 9MST on most days.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:37 pmI'll skype with you, I'm off to work here shortly though.
Wildcat wrote: ↑September 21st, 2019, 2:32 pmIf the air is "sucked or pushed" into a vacuum has not been proven, its all "theory" . But with all the greatness of - artificial intelligence someday somebody will create and insert an AI into a vacuum and we will all know for sure which is right ( if its programmed properly ).
"Limitations of vocabulary"! It's the simplest wording there is. The waters are "above" the firmament. It can't be misinterpreted. If you can't trust such simple language, you can't trust anything in all of scripture. Is the Second Coming also subject to the same "limitations"?larsenb wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:59 pm
No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.
I've learned to keep scriptural renditions largely separate from my science after a long, hard fought effort, which has had some rough consequences.
Allison wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:10 pmHow long do you think a flat earther would last in any of those classes? They would either have to repeat things they thought were untrue, or they would probably flunk out. It seems to be the same with political science classes, too. And the problem with saying what feels like lies to get the grade is, people begin to believe the lies they tell.
I would concur with auditing classes. And I hope not to sound condescending. But we should all be lifelong learners. And in today day and age there are many avenues to do that. It is good though to have a guide at first to help develop critical reasoning skills and learn the foundations. Then we can be prepared to critically read from libraries or the internet to broaden our knowledge. I strong encourage that and try to do it myself.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 5:25 pm Yes thanks, great idea. I do have other demands on my life at this time, but this whole topic has made me more interested in all of it, for sure. I am afraid it might have been a slightly condescending suggestion, but it’s okay; it happens to have crossed my mind a lot over the past year. Auditing would solve that one dilemma!
I do happen to have an in-home brainiac of that kind, namely, my husband. It would take me 10 years of taking those classes just to become somewhat conversant with him, and even then I wouldn’t be his peer. So the nice thing in my personal quest for truth is that I can bounce things off on him and he explains scientifically why something does or doesn’t hold water. He makes it understandable amazingly well.
Still, it would be interesting to learn more and more...but seeking for TRUTH, not the honors of men...nor the philosophies of men, mingled with some truth.
justme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 6:47 pmI would concur with auditing classes. And I hope not to sound condescending. But we should all be lifelong learners. And in today day and age there are many avenues to do that. It is good though to have a guide at first to help develop critical reasoning skills and learn the foundations. Then we can be prepared to critically read from libraries or the internet to broaden our knowledge. I strong encourage that and try to do it myself.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 5:25 pm Yes thanks, great idea. I do have other demands on my life at this time, but this whole topic has made me more interested in all of it, for sure. I am afraid it might have been a slightly condescending suggestion, but it’s okay; it happens to have crossed my mind a lot over the past year. Auditing would solve that one dilemma!
I do happen to have an in-home brainiac of that kind, namely, my husband. It would take me 10 years of taking those classes just to become somewhat conversant with him, and even then I wouldn’t be his peer. So the nice thing in my personal quest for truth is that I can bounce things off on him and he explains scientifically why something does or doesn’t hold water. He makes it understandable amazingly well.
Still, it would be interesting to learn more and more...but seeking for TRUTH, not the honors of men...nor the philosophies of men, mingled with some truth.
Agreed. I was once part of a book club that was more academic, non fiction. That was a great experience but may be hard to find kindred spirits.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:29 pmjustme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 6:47 pmI would concur with auditing classes. And I hope not to sound condescending. But we should all be lifelong learners. And in today day and age there are many avenues to do that. It is good though to have a guide at first to help develop critical reasoning skills and learn the foundations. Then we can be prepared to critically read from libraries or the internet to broaden our knowledge. I strong encourage that and try to do it myself.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 5:25 pm Yes thanks, great idea. I do have other demands on my life at this time, but this whole topic has made me more interested in all of it, for sure. I am afraid it might have been a slightly condescending suggestion, but it’s okay; it happens to have crossed my mind a lot over the past year. Auditing would solve that one dilemma!
I do happen to have an in-home brainiac of that kind, namely, my husband. It would take me 10 years of taking those classes just to become somewhat conversant with him, and even then I wouldn’t be his peer. So the nice thing in my personal quest for truth is that I can bounce things off on him and he explains scientifically why something does or doesn’t hold water. He makes it understandable amazingly well.
Still, it would be interesting to learn more and more...but seeking for TRUTH, not the honors of men...nor the philosophies of men, mingled with some truth.
Thank you, brother. I do have a bachelors from BYU in legal research (Justice Administration), so there is a bit of a foundation. And I did Pathway last year anyway, just for the 40% tuition break for the very reason there is so much more I want to study.
A lot of times though, I think autodidactic learners are the most advanced in many fields. Pathway reminded me of the silly , arbitrary hoops someone sets up for you to jump through in hopes that things will be learned along the way. (Pathway is great, not knocking the program.)
Self directed study works well up to a point, but eventually we all need a mentor who is so far advanced, they can guide our path, which is so different than reading and regurgitating for papers and tests.
justme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:09 pm So just some more musings.
If the earth is flat, then I assume we mean really a cylinder of some thickness. (Otherwise mineshafts would poke through the earth to well someplace). Assuming the earth then is a relatively reasonably uniformly dense cylinder then the center of mass would be right below the center (the north pole on the map Allison provided earlier) and at a depth of half the thickness. Now the force of gravity acts between the centers of mass. So if you drop an apple over the north pole it would fall straight down, but if you dropped an apple further away from the pole it would fall at an angle. If you went to the falkland islands or cape town or some other far south location and dropped an apple it would fall almost sideways. But they don't (I have dropped things in South Africa so I have seen this with my own senses.) But if the earth was a sphere then the center of mass is at the center and from whereever you are on the sphere straight down would correspond to falling towards the center of mass of the earth. So apples would fall straight down no matter where you are. (this idea of apples falling straight down is exactly what got Newton thinking on such things). I don't see how gravity (newtons law of universal gravitation works with a flat earth or disk model) ((unless of course the earth is really really thick so that the sideways falling would be negligible but then that would be like thinking our flat earth was just the flat top of long spaghetti noodle, I don't think that is a standard model for flat earths))
but it looks like he may have been wrong after all, so maybe truly solid theories cannot actually be developed just with pencil and paper. Experiments are more reliable, right?justme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:47 pmAgreed. I was once part of a book club that was more academic, non fiction. That was a great experience but may be hard to find kindred spirits.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:29 pmjustme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 6:47 pmI would concur with auditing classes. And I hope not to sound condescending. But we should all be lifelong learners. And in today day and age there are many avenues to do that. It is good though to have a guide at first to help develop critical reasoning skills and learn the foundations. Then we can be prepared to critically read from libraries or the internet to broaden our knowledge. I strong encourage that and try to do it myself.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 5:25 pm Yes thanks, great idea. I do have other demands on my life at this time, but this whole topic has made me more interested in all of it, for sure. I am afraid it might have been a slightly condescending suggestion, but it’s okay; it happens to have crossed my mind a lot over the past year. Auditing would solve that one dilemma!
I do happen to have an in-home brainiac of that kind, namely, my husband. It would take me 10 years of taking those classes just to become somewhat conversant with him, and even then I wouldn’t be his peer. So the nice thing in my personal quest for truth is that I can bounce things off on him and he explains scientifically why something does or doesn’t hold water. He makes it understandable amazingly well.
Still, it would be interesting to learn more and more...but seeking for TRUTH, not the honors of men...nor the philosophies of men, mingled with some truth.
Thank you, brother. I do have a bachelors from BYU in legal research (Justice Administration), so there is a bit of a foundation. And I did Pathway last year anyway, just for the 40% tuition break for the very reason there is so much more I want to study.
A lot of times though, I think autodidactic learners are the most advanced in many fields. Pathway reminded me of the silly , arbitrary hoops someone sets up for you to jump through in hopes that things will be learned along the way. (Pathway is great, not knocking the program.)
Self directed study works well up to a point, but eventually we all need a mentor who is so far advanced, they can guide our path, which is so different than reading and regurgitating for papers and tests.
I have mixed feelings about the internet. It provides instant access to virtually everything, but it also allows people to randomly put up whatever they like. Whereas with a library and printed books you know that a lot more effort and editing went into the publications. So I would recommend you read books.
Ask questions, lots of questions, and think through the answers critically. On the internet it may be hard to know who to trust though. For instance you don't know me from Adam. And many people on this forum vehemently disagree with me on politics and such. But you will get mainstream straight up answers from me on math and science. And I have tried to be open minded on this thread.
When something is out of my expertise I will not claim knowledge. For instance many things on this thread deals with curvature being caused by lenses. I do not have expertise in optics (yet) but I do know that there are fish eyes lenses and such that distort curves. Thus I have remained silent on those lines. But geometry, math, gravity etc I will chime in on.
Gravity is an obvious major factor that would need to be explained, but there are many others also. From the little that I have seen apparently one attempt to explain gravity would be that the earth is accelerating in its movement straight up at 32 feet per second squared. It is true that in the absence of traditional gravity it would seem that dropped apples would fall straight down at the acceleration of gravity. But gravity is different on the moon. So the moon would have to be accelerating straight up at a smaller amount. Thus the moon would be getting closer to us and very quickly would pass below us and be gone. Hasn't happened yet? So any attempt at replacing Newton's law of universal gravitation would have to be universal.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:57 pmjustme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:09 pm So just some more musings.
If the earth is flat, then I assume we mean really a cylinder of some thickness. (Otherwise mineshafts would poke through the earth to well someplace). Assuming the earth then is a relatively reasonably uniformly dense cylinder then the center of mass would be right below the center (the north pole on the map Allison provided earlier) and at a depth of half the thickness. Now the force of gravity acts between the centers of mass. So if you drop an apple over the north pole it would fall straight down, but if you dropped an apple further away from the pole it would fall at an angle. If you went to the falkland islands or cape town or some other far south location and dropped an apple it would fall almost sideways. But they don't (I have dropped things in South Africa so I have seen this with my own senses.) But if the earth was a sphere then the center of mass is at the center and from whereever you are on the sphere straight down would correspond to falling towards the center of mass of the earth. So apples would fall straight down no matter where you are. (this idea of apples falling straight down is exactly what got Newton thinking on such things). I don't see how gravity (newtons law of universal gravitation works with a flat earth or disk model) ((unless of course the earth is really really thick so that the sideways falling would be negligible but then that would be like thinking our flat earth was just the flat top of long spaghetti noodle, I don't think that is a standard model for flat earths))
Lol, you’re not going to lure me into speculating! Don’t know about Shawn or anyone else, but I’m not going there!
If I gave you a good FE explanation for gravity, would you conclude the Earth was flat? Be honest.
I know you said I could come up with a good Flat Earth model on a low budget, just like Einstein (why thank you, what a compliment)
And, wouldn’t it be better to confine ourselves to searching out the evidence for and against the curve at this early stage? And then, hypothetically, if we agreed the requisite curvature was not there, many, many assumptions would have to be revisited. Flat or round, I like to think we’ll be studying a lot of science and history in the Millennium.
justme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:21 pmGravity is an obvious major factor that would need to be explained, but there are many others also. From the little that I have seen apparently one attempt to explain gravity would be that the earth is accelerating in its movement straight up at 32 feet per second squared. It is true that in the absence of traditional gravity it would seem that dropped apples would fall straight down at the acceleration of gravity. But gravity is different on the moon. So the moon would have to be accelerating straight up at a smaller amount. Thus the moon would be getting closer to us and very quickly would pass below us and be gone. Hasn't happened yet? So any attempt at replacing Newton's law of universal gravitation would have to be universal.Allison wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:57 pmjustme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 7:09 pm So just some more musings.
If the earth is flat, then I assume we mean really a cylinder of some thickness. (Otherwise mineshafts would poke through the earth to well someplace). Assuming the earth then is a relatively reasonably uniformly dense cylinder then the center of mass would be right below the center (the north pole on the map Allison provided earlier) and at a depth of half the thickness. Now the force of gravity acts between the centers of mass. So if you drop an apple over the north pole it would fall straight down, but if you dropped an apple further away from the pole it would fall at an angle. If you went to the falkland islands or cape town or some other far south location and dropped an apple it would fall almost sideways. But they don't (I have dropped things in South Africa so I have seen this with my own senses.) But if the earth was a sphere then the center of mass is at the center and from whereever you are on the sphere straight down would correspond to falling towards the center of mass of the earth. So apples would fall straight down no matter where you are. (this idea of apples falling straight down is exactly what got Newton thinking on such things). I don't see how gravity (newtons law of universal gravitation works with a flat earth or disk model) ((unless of course the earth is really really thick so that the sideways falling would be negligible but then that would be like thinking our flat earth was just the flat top of long spaghetti noodle, I don't think that is a standard model for flat earths))
Lol, you’re not going to lure me into speculating! Don’t know about Shawn or anyone else, but I’m not going there!
If I gave you a good FE explanation for gravity, would you conclude the Earth was flat? Be honest.
I know you said I could come up with a good Flat Earth model on a low budget, just like Einstein (why thank you, what a compliment)
And, wouldn’t it be better to confine ourselves to searching out the evidence for and against the curve at this early stage? And then, hypothetically, if we agreed the requisite curvature was not there, many, many assumptions would have to be revisited. Flat or round, I like to think we’ll be studying a lot of science and history in the Millennium.
There is no evidence that Einstein was wrong, to the contrary countless experiments vindicate him. Now I know that some claim he was wrong. But I have not successfully got any of them to point out to me which postulate of relativity they are denying. And if they are not denying one then there is no question mathematically that special relativity follows. I can walk any good student, even a high school student through the proofs of time dilation etc. So the only chance for Einstein to be wrong on special relativity is if he is wrong on one of the postulates. Yet experiments continually back him up. So sorry I do not accept the assertion that Einstein was wrong. Remember the famous quote from Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
As far as what to study I love the scripture Alma 30:44
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
The planets and the earth and their motions in their regular forms are so elegant and beautiful and simply expressed by Newton and Copernicus and others. That is what I study. And quite simply and sorry to be blunt but having the earth be some sort of flat disk that doesn't move and having the others being globes that orbit in such regular forms does not strike me to match this scripture.
But I think I have shown that I am willing to think through what ever model is proposed and see what the implications are.
The Earth has been known to be round going as far back as the first recorded civilization, Sumeria. The idea of a spherical Earth predates even the Greeks. It is very much an urban legend that Columbus "discovered the world was round". This false idea originates from the 19th century author Washington Irving and has since been popularized. Most everyone knew the Earth was spherical but they did not know how large it was and they did not know there was a land mass seperate from Eurasia and Africa now called the Americas.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:55 pmIt is true. I can't list them by memory, but the vast majority adhered to the same Hebrew cosmological view of a dome over a flat earth resting on pillars. If you look at the historical pictographs, you'll see astonishingly similar worldviews.jmack wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 4:54 pm
That’s not true, we were taught a falsehood that Columbus was the only one who thought the earth was round, some peasants didn't know this, but it's the basis for navigation for eons and those who traveled 1,000s of miles knew this and also knew how to navigate by the stars, along with this knowledge. Pilots know the earth is round and this is used for flight as well.
Your navigation references don't come into play, because navigation works on both models. Many astronomers and astrophysicists have admitted that the rotation of the stars fits a heliocentric and geocentric model and that one can't tell which it is through simple observation.
That's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.Allison wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:14 pmnvr wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 4:13 pmbraingrunt wrote:Consider adding to your question: what makes the sunlight visible further from higher elevation. You can see drones capturing two or more sunsets by recording one, then racing upwards to see another, repeated until the drone reaches it's maximum height.I don't think it's anybody's intention to gang up on a person for their beliefs. If attacking a scientific concept, you have to be ready to defend your hypothesis - no hard feelings are intended. Often, if you're hearing the same thing from many sources, with evidence supplied and invitations to experiment and learn for yourself, it's a good sign that what the people are saying is true.
That's a great drone video, by the way. But you do know that would work on a flat earth too, right? Because elevation increases perspective, or distance of visibility, right. But did you notice how the horizon rose with the rise in elevation?
Couldn't have said it better myself.braingrunt wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 8:47 amThat's incorrect. On the video I watched, the horizon dropped--if you place a reference line on the horizon at the beginning you'll see the horizon go lower than that at the drone rises. Now of course nearby objects drop MORE than the horizon but thats how perspective works.Allison wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 5:14 pmnvr wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 4:13 pmbraingrunt wrote:
Consider adding to your question: what makes the sunlight visible further from higher elevation. You can see drones capturing two or more sunsets by recording one, then racing upwards to see another, repeated until the drone reaches it's maximum height.I don't think it's anybody's intention to gang up on a person for their beliefs. If attacking a scientific concept, you have to be ready to defend your hypothesis - no hard feelings are intended. Often, if you're hearing the same thing from many sources, with evidence supplied and invitations to experiment and learn for yourself, it's a good sign that what the people are saying is true.
That's a great drone video, by the way. But you do know that would work on a flat earth too, right? Because elevation increases perspective, or distance of visibility, right. But did you notice how the horizon rose with the rise in elevation?
The other thing is also incorrect. It would not work on a flat earth. Rising in elevation could be argued to "increase your perspective" OF THE GROUND below you (although it would not actually increase the size of anything in view, it would just increase separation of foreground and background)--but unless there are mountains you can see in the way, it could not be said to "increase your perspective" of the sky above you where the sun resides.