Flat Earth in the Holy Bible!

[Jumi]

OR, the sun is stationary and the rest of the galaxy is revolving past it

I don't know if that's such a useful reference point.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Okay, but you still haven't answered my question, "Does it stop turning when you stop moving your feet?" and you have to deal with this . . . . .

I'm surprised you had to ask. In the frame of reference where I am the origin of the coordinate system it stops turning relative to me, yes; and if I make a jumping motion it momentarily moves down and then back up.

So in what specific direction would the world be turning to accommodate the various directions these folk are walking?

It would not matter what direction they were walking. If I'm the origin of the coordinate system then it turns relative to me. Other people merely walk upon the Earth, but I turn it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

OR, the sun is stationary and the rest of the galaxy is revolving past it

The sun would have a very complex motion. First it would wheel in a strange pattern about the Earth. Then of course since the Earth was turned by my feet, my feet would also affect the motion of the Sun. Then of course the Galaxy would be moving in a fairly strange pattern about the Sun as well and the whole thing with me as its origin would probably have a motion sort of like scribble scrabble though it would appear not to. It would still appear as if the Earth were going around the Sun and the Sun were going about the Galaxy.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know if that's such a useful reference point.

Hmmm. . . . . and all along I thought that we were the center of the universe.

 

[Ouroboros]

OR, the sun is stationary and the rest of the galaxy is revolving past it

Or, stand up for a moment and then spin around, make a 360.

The whole universe now revolved around you.

 

[Jumi]

Hmmm. . . . . and all along I thought that we were the center of the universe.

As long as it's not on a pancake with moving a black curtain over it with holes that give off light in the room, I'm good with any reference point.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As long as it's not on a pancake with moving a black curtain over it with holes that give off light in the room, I'm good with any reference point.

That is a very sensible, middle-of-the-road approach! You avoid the extreme of Skwim's conservative "The Sun must be the center of our Solar System!"

 

[Skwim]

I'm surprised you had to ask. In the frame of reference where I am the origin of the coordinate system it stops turning relative to me, yes; and if I make a jumping motion it momentarily moves down and then back up.


It would not matter what direction they were walking. If I'm the origin of the coordinate system then it turns relative to me. Other people merely walk upon the Earth, but I turn it.

Sorry, but for turning to make any sense, even hypothetically, on has to acknowledge an actual turning. And obviously the earth can't turn in more than one direction at once. One can't simply dismiss all the others who walk in a different direction. They have to be accounted for in your hypothetical. Even if there were only two moving creatures on earth you still have to consider their direction of movement in relation to your own. You can't pretend they don't exist and blithely postulate a coherent relationship in the change of position between you and the earth, other than your personal movement. Your frame of reference tragically breaks down when you shift it to yourself as "the origin of the coordinate system." It necessarily excludes the fact that you are not alone. Now, if you and the earth were the only characters in this hypothetical, and you always walked westward, then and only then, would it have a chance of working; although, you would have to be walking at roughly 1,000 miles an hour.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry, but for turning to make any sense, even hypothetically, on has to acknowledge an actual turning. And obviously the earth can't turn in more than one direction at once. One can't simply dismiss all the others who walk in a different direction. They have to be accounted for in your hypothetical. Even if there were only two moving creatures on earth you still have to consider their direction of movement in relation to your own. You can't pretend they don't exist and blithely postulate a coherent relationship in the change of position between you and the earth, other than your personal movement. Your frame of reference tragically breaks down when you shift it to yourself as "the origin of the coordinate system." It necessarily excludes the fact that you are not alone. Now, if you and the earth were the only characters in this hypothetical, and you always walked eastward, then and only then, would it have a chance of working; although, you would have to be walking at roughly 1,000 miles an hour.

None but the simpliest mathematical models are without approximations. We have to approximate. Otherwise we've be very limited in the things we could model. I'm modeling the motion of the Earth relative to me, with me as the origin of the coordinate system. I do account for the motions of others. They move about the surface of the Earth, and this works whether the Earth is round or flat. I don't pretend you don't exist. Also there's no need for me to turn the Earth at 1000 miles per hour so long as I allow for the solar system to revolve around it quickly enough and in the right patterns as to effect day and night and seasons. Anyway, who says the model must extend out that far? It only needs to be accurate in my immediate vicinity.

 

[Kolibri]

Are not all points of reference, when not set up to prove a specific conclusion, arbitrary anyway?

 

[Skwim]

None but the simpliest mathematical models are without approximations. We have to approximate. Otherwise we've be very limited in the things we could model. I'm modeling the motion of the Earth relative to me, with me as the origin of the coordinate system.

I don't see any actual modeling, much less any approximations going on, but that aside, I also don't see you accounting for the motions of others. If your change in position on earth is a result of the earth turning in that particular oppositional direction then it cannot turn in any contrary direction so as to accommodate others. Your hypothetical leaves out the reality of existence: you are not alone. It's simply wacky to say, 'Wow! look at the way the earth is moving beneath me, and it isn't moving that way for anyone else, even though they too are changing position. I must be v e r y special. " I know this isn't what you would actually imagine, but it's what you imply in giving your hypothetical credence. Your proposed frame of reference just doesn't work. Considering the extenuating circumstances that have to be taken into consideration it fails at the outset. Even in considering frames of reference the logic that says we move on the earth just in there that says the earth moves beneath us.

They move about the surface of the Earth, and this works whether the Earth is round or flat. I don't pretend you don't exist. Also there's no need for me to turn the Earth at 1000 miles per hour so long as I allow for the solar system to revolve around it quickly enough and in the right patterns as to effect day and night and seasons.
Anyway, who says the model must extend out that far? It only needs to be accurate in my immediate vicinity.

And that case only extends to the rotation of the earth, its day-night cycle, not its orbit around the sun.

 

[Jumi]

"The Sun must be the center of our Solar System!"

I can't speak for others, I just think there are many ways to look at systems. Places with highest gravity effect would be a good choice for a center in a system like this. For our solar system, our sun would be a logical choice if we take the view. It's also least complicated and most useful in practical sense.

Philosophically we can think of ourselves as the center, but then what is the center in us?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I also don't see you accounting for the motions of others. If your change in position on earth is a result of the earth turning in that particular oppositional direction then it cannot turn in any contrary direction so as to accommodate others. Your hypothetical leaves out the reality of existence: you are not alone. It's simply wacky to say, 'Wow! look at the way the earth is moving beneath me, and it isn't moving that way for anyone else, even though they too are changing position. I must be v e r y special. " I know this isn't what you would actually imagine, but it's what you imply in giving your hypothetical credence. Your proposed frame of reference just doesn't work. Considering the extenuating circumstances that have to be taken into consideration it fails at the outset. Even in considering frames of reference the logic that says we move on the earth just in there that says the earth moves beneath us.

I am not proposing a Scientific hypothesis for you to critique. I'm just establishing a coordinate system, and its perfectly legitimate by the rules of Vector spaces. The Earth moves relative to me, so there is a vector pointing from me to it. Other people move relative to the Earth, so there are vectors from it to them. Add those vectors, and you get vectors from me to the positions of the people. The relative velocities add in the same way. No problem!

And that case only extends to the rotation of the earth, its day-night cycle, not its orbit around the sun.

Which is sufficient for the purpose to which I am putting the model.

 

[TashaN]

Is it possible to argue that the bible has been true all along that earth is flat and it's the center of the universe in a way since there is no consensus or at least because of the way we interpret theories like special relativity and frame of reference?

 

[Skwim]

Is it possible to argue that the bible has been true all along that earth is flat and it's the center of the universe in a way since there is no consensus or at least because of the way we interpret theories like special relativity and frame of reference?

Well, you can argue anything, but this is one you wouldn't win. There's an enormous consensus that it's not possible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it possible to argue that the bible has been true all along that earth is flat and it's the center of the universe in a way since there is no consensus or at least because of the way we interpret theories like special relativity and frame of reference?

To me, no. The Earth is not flat, and its a good reason not to think of the Bible as a science source.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Is it possible to argue that the bible has been true all along that earth is flat and it's the center of the universe in a way since there is no consensus or at least because of the way we interpret theories like special relativity and frame of reference?

No not for me ... i was Born in England and Emigrated to Australasia ....
there was no narrow edge of the pancake as we celebrated the equator crossing,
nor the several times i have flow north to visit relatives

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

"..... Australasia....." ???
What ??
~
'mud

Yes, emigrated to Australia, Moved to New Zealand, back to Aussie to run a business
and back to NZ after i was injured in a Car Accident

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thank you all for your comments. I'm still puzzled though. If it is not that easy to draw such a firm conclusion about earth being flat then why did the early church strongly believed in it?

By "early church" if you mean the apostles, they had the Bible, and therefore a spherical planet in mind. If by early church you mean people from the first few centuries after Christ, they were very often, very poor Bible minds.

 

[hispanicmormon]

Of course people in Bible times believed the earth was flat. It's impossible to understand the first chapter of Genesis if you don't understand the ancient Jewish view of the world (which includes a flat earth). First, they believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was a flat circle (Isaiah 40:22). There were waters below the Earth (the oceans) and waters above the Earth. The waters above the Earth were kept up by a firmament called the sky, only occasionally falling to the Earth as rain. The sun and the moon moved around the Earth. When the Sun is not visible, it was believed to be under the Earth (shining on the side opposite to the one people stand on).

As evidence of this view, consider Genesis 1:6-8. This is where they explain this firmament that divides the waters below.

All this information I got from the NAB Bible footnotes and Introduction to Genesis.