Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 09-06-2009, 03:11 PM

I've actually calculated how high one would have to be to see various approximations of "all the kingdoms of the world".

Here are the best mountains available:

World	Mt. Everest	Himalayas	Nepal/China	8.848 km	5.498 mi
Roman Empire	Agri Dagi	Volcano	Turkey/Armenia	5.137 km	3.192 mi
Near Rome	Mt. Blanc	Alps	France/Italy	4.697 km	2.919 mi

Agri Dagi is also known as Mt. Ararat.

For the Roman Empire, I calculated the view height for Lisbon and Baghdad. Other perpheral cities, like London and Bucharest, fit into their circle, so it worked for them also. It was

480 km / 300 mi

I added the Parthians by including Tehran. The Scythians, with Kiev, also fit inside.

590 km / 370 mi

I added Taprobane (Ceylon, Sri Lanka) by including Colombo. India also fit inside.

2300 km / 1400 mi

I added China by including Beijing.

2700 km / 1700 mi

I added the Mayans by including Guatemala City.

27,000 km / 17,000 km

All those distances are well into outer space. The International Space Station orbits at an altitude of 350 km / 220 mi, lower than the Roman-Empire viewing height.

Geosynchronous satellites orbit at a distance that makes them orbit at the rate of the Earth's rotation; that distance is 36,000 km / 22,000 mi.

The Moon is at 238,900 mi / 384,400 km.

So Jesus Christ would have been in outer space, and there's no description of that in the New Testament, nothing about how black the sky is in broad daylight, and nothing about him magically creating air so that he could continue to breathe.

Here are the formulas I'd used for positions x on a sphere with radius r:

Two cities at locations with unit vectors n₁ and n₂:

$\vec x = r \frac{\vec n_1 + \vec n_2}{1 + \vec n_1 \cdot \vec n_2}$

Three cities at locations with unit vectors n₁, n₂ and n₃:

$\vec x = r \frac{(\vec n_1 \times \vec n_2) + (\vec n_2 \times \vec n_3) + (\vec n_3 \times \vec n_1)}{\vec n_1 \cdot (\vec n_2 \times \vec n_3)}$

mountainman · 09-06-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I've actually calculated how high one would have to be to see various approximations of "all the kingdoms of the world".

Here are the best mountains available:

World	Mt. Everest	Himalayas	Nepal/China	8.848 km	5.498 mi
Roman Empire	Agri Dagi	Volcano	Turkey/Armenia	5.137 km	3.192 mi
Near Rome	Mt. Blanc	Alps	France/Italy	4.697 km	2.919 mi

Agri Dagi is also known as Mt. Ararat.

It is a well known claim in a number of texts that Jesus was at least above the clouds. In one text, the apocryphal gPeter, an eyewitness report states that Jesus' head was above the heavens. We may need to recalibrate the above data grid for the possibility that Jeremiah Jesus Johnson travelled to an altitude far beyond the mountain lands.

The very seriously accepted notion that the apostles travelled around in a "bright cloud" after Jeremiah Jesus Johnson went west is also supported in a number of other texts.

DCHindley · 09-06-2009, 10:05 PM

Actually, the antipodes would be the inhabitants of the underside of the sphere of the earth, as it means "(those who walk on their hands) instead of feet." It was a rhetorical term, as it seemed unreasonable to assume anyone hung from the lower portion of the earth by their hands like monkeys - they didn't know about gravity - so you are right the underside of the earth would not be habitable in their eyes.

If a flat pancake-like earth is assumed, it is possible to recognize that one can get a better vantage point from a high point (a commonplace observation) without realizing one is standing on a curved surface.

Either way, whether the earth is flat as a pancake or a sphere where we inhabit the "top" part, the sun, moon and planets can easily be assumed to rotate around the earth.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2999/...ic-Theory.html
Is Matthew 4:8 the irrefutable proof?
“Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence.” NAB
That is, he is telling the story to his disciples, believing the Devil took him to a very high mountain from where he saw all the great kingdoms of a flat Earth in the center of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Formally speaking it is possible to have a round earth with all the inhabited land visible from one high point; ie as long as there are no inhabited antipodes.

Andrew Criddle

Julio · 09-06-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

....from where he saw all the great kingdoms of a flat Earth...

Julio, this may be considered nit picking by some on this forum, but "geocentrism" refers to the Platonic/Aristotelian hypothesis that the earth is the center of the solar system, and that the sun rotates about the earth, contrary to Aristarchus' theory, "heliocentrism", in which the earth rotates about the sun. Geocentrism has nothing to do with the false belief that the earth is flat.

The earth was considered flat, much later in history, by ignorant Europeans, i.e. those unfamiliar with Greek learning, but not by the ship going Phoenicians and other pre-common era navigators. Eratosthenes, who assumed the duties of head librarian at Alexandria, (after Aristarchus,) repository of the world's greatest collection of scrolls and manuscripts, at that time, i.e. ~250 BCE, was the first to compute the circumference of the (round) earth. How did he do this, Julio?

Eratosthenes' experiment was spectacular, at least in my opinion. He computed the circumference of the earth, relatively accurately, by today's standards, using nothing more than a knowledge of geometry, and two pieces of wood. His discovery served as one of the pedestals, upon which Columbus based his assurances to the Royalty of Spain, who intended to finance Columbus' search for a faster trade route to the gold and spices of the orient, by sailing west, instead of east. Columbus, like his contemporary, Copernicus, had encountered the Greek manuscripts brought to Italy, by the Christians fleeing the Muslims after the fall of Constantinople in the 1450's.

Thank you for the explanation. Appreciated. Actually I assumed that Jesus would be a "geocentric" christ, where the Earth was the center of the universe, and thus he also had to believe in a flat planet. The other thing is that it is impossible to see with the naked eye any real detail of anything bellow from a few thousand meters up in the sky. What would Jesus see? Smoke? Rivers?...

Eldarion Lathria · 09-07-2009, 10:45 AM

Thomas Paine asked the following question. "If Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, how is it he did not discover America?" "Or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness is concerned?"

Eldarion Lathria

PhilosopherJay · 09-07-2009, 11:39 AM

Here's an image that reflects the ancient Hebrew's view of the world.

In a sense, it really isn't that much different from ancient Hebrew housing. See here. The Hebrews would have simply seen the world as one of their houses writ large, just they as they imagined their Gods as Hebrew tribal leaders writ large.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Clivedurdle · 09-07-2009, 01:29 PM

What do we learn about the world views of the gospel writers and editors from these stories? The new heaven and new earth and the new Jerusalem at the centre of the universe are particularly of note.

Is Jerusalem as the centre of the universe a pre existing Jewish idea?

And why is god so hobo like - forty years in a desert, then a move to Mecca.

Where should we retire him to?

Who should nurse him in his dotage?

semiopen · 09-08-2009, 11:19 AM

I read somewhere that a spherical earth was already known around 600 BCE.

The heavenly bodies circling earth is clearly biblical (whether spherical or coin shaped).

The other bodies circling the earth, so far as I understand, violates the general theory of relativity where objects far away from the earth would have to travel faster than the speed of light. This is a difficult subject though and I have not found an absolutely reliable source to confirm this. Apparently the people that understand this have better things to do. It sounds right though.

semiopen · 09-08-2009, 12:46 PM

This link discusses the general theory of relativity and how it relates to geocentricity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shkedi01e.htm

Quote:

There has been an attempt to apply Einstein's theory of relativity to this controversy. The theory of relativity has two parts. The "easy" part is "special relativity" which is studied by most physicists. The other part is "general relativity", a very difficult field which is rarely studied, and is understood only by a few physicists who specialize in it. Practically all discussions of relativity refer to "special relativity". In special relativity, it does not matter who is moving and who is stationary, the only thing that matters is the relative motion. The German philosopher Hans Reichenbach, argued in his book "The Philosophy of Space and Time" (1928), that for the earth to orbit around the sun is the same as for the sun to orbit around the earth. This may be an interesting philosophical play with words, however, scientifically it is a bad mistake.

This attempt to apply special relativity to the orbital motion of astronomical bodies ignored the differences between special relativity and general relativity. It also ignored the orbital motion of the other planets. Is Venus orbiting around the sun the same as Venus orbiting around the earth? Is Venus orbiting around the earth the same as the earth orbiting around Venus? Special relativity is a very narrow application of relativity which deals ONLY with motion on a STRAIGHT LINE at a constant speed, without accelerations, without rotations, and without the influence of gravity. Once we add even one of these factors into the picture, (and in our case all three are present) special relativity is no longer applicable. We enter the realm of general relativity. In the presence of gravity, acceleration, and rotation, it makes a huge difference who is moving and who is not; who has a low mass and who has a high mass. Therefore, for the earth to orbit around the sun is NOT the same as for the sun to orbit around the earth.

The attempt to introduce relativity into the discussion also involves a serious built-in contradiction. One of the fundamental tenets of relativity is that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If we try to fix the earth at the center and let the stars orbit around the earth, the stars will have to move at a speed greater than the speed of light, because of their distance. So, is relativity applicable or not? We cannot choose one half of relativity which is convenient to the argument and ignore the other half.

This is a clear refutation of the geocentric theory.

Julio · 09-08-2009, 10:25 PM

Good explanation. That means the church of the first 15 centuries went out to persecute and kill the student who wanted to tell it the cosmic truth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2009, 10:45 AM	#15
Eldarion Lathria Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Atlantis Posts: 2,449	Thomas Paine asked the following question. "If Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, how is it he did not discover America?" "Or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness is concerned?" Eldarion Lathria

09-07-2009, 11:39 AM	#16
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Here's an image that reflects the ancient Hebrew's view of the world. In a sense, it really isn't that much different from ancient Hebrew housing. See here. The Hebrews would have simply seen the world as one of their houses writ large, just they as they imagined their Gods as Hebrew tribal leaders writ large. Warmly, Philosopher Jay

09-07-2009, 01:29 PM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What do we learn about the world views of the gospel writers and editors from these stories? The new heaven and new earth and the new Jerusalem at the centre of the universe are particularly of note. Is Jerusalem as the centre of the universe a pre existing Jewish idea? And why is god so hobo like - forty years in a desert, then a move to Mecca. Where should we retire him to? Who should nurse him in his dotage?

09-08-2009, 11:19 AM	#18
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	I read somewhere that a spherical earth was already known around 600 BCE. The heavenly bodies circling earth is clearly biblical (whether spherical or coin shaped). The other bodies circling the earth, so far as I understand, violates the general theory of relativity where objects far away from the earth would have to travel faster than the speed of light. This is a difficult subject though and I have not found an absolutely reliable source to confirm this. Apparently the people that understand this have better things to do. It sounds right though.

09-08-2009, 10:25 PM	#20
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Good explanation. That means the church of the first 15 centuries went out to persecute and kill the student who wanted to tell it the cosmic truth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.