Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They knew it all along: Shape and size of Earth

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ok... an 18 sided hexagon. It still isn't a circle. In fact, with your correction you just made the shape even LESS of a circle since calculus states that the gaps between tangent lines needs to be smaller not larger to correctly approximate a curve.


I am aware of that, but I still fail to see your point. It's a matter of perception and design, and stuff like how they will anchor this structure to the planet. For all we know it follows the ground, not cutting into it. It doesn't actually say the sides are straight. I expect this structure to be an architectural wonder. Not just a box.


A hexagon approximating a circle is either going to have more or less area than the circle it is approximating. Your approximation happens to have more area. You aren't going to get the correct dimensions. This is odd since the ancients knew what circles and spheres were. So it would make sense if the dimensions of the earth are going to be hidden in the bible, that they'd use the REAL dimensions and not some poorly approximated version of it.

Then on top of all that, even IF we accept the approximation as a valid circumference of the planet, the planet is ovular in shape. It's not even a true circle.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

The earth is a perfect sphere when you add the water, it self levels.


No, this is nonsense. The Earth is an oblated sphere, wider at the equator than at the poles. Gravity from the moon and sun also keep the oceans in a perpetual state of motion, bulging it towards them in the various tides.

Everything else in this thread is the work of ancient philosophers, ruminating over the shape and size of the Earth, with none of them ever getting it exactly right. Some came close, some were way off the mark. Mix into that the religious zealotry of those who wanted to protect or extend the influence of the Bible and you get some amazingly nutty theories.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The circle of the Earth or these other planets I list, is irrelevant, there is room for that many of these boxes if you were to make a bunch of them and line them up. Circle of diamons shaped, I don't care what they would have to do to the Earth to place 18 newjerusalems along the Equator or place ten around Mars or 17 around Venus. You would obviously need to shave off a bit of these planets to fit the box.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I just want to point out that while it's interesting that a cube around the earth exactly 18 times there is no significance to that number, just like there's no significance to it being almost 1/10 of Mars. You could measure any planet and it will be some fraction.

As far as measuring the Earth goes though, the ancient Greeks figured it out about 2200 years ago.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

No if you did this on 500 planets (given we had the data) there would be fractions of fractions. These are whole numbers and near accurate fractions, and don't these numbers look rather familiar, I mean we are talking about Revelation here: 18, 17, 10



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

what does that demonstrate ???



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The exact diameter of the earth is irrelevant? I thought we were talking about coded messages in the bible that accurately describe the circumference of the earth? Why WOULDN'T the exact diameter of the earth be relevant? Is it possibly because you are pushing a narrative that doesn't exist and I called you on it?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have used the average perimeter of the Earth. The Earth is not a perfect sphere, but if you'd scaled down the Earth to the size of an eightball, the surface of Earth would actually be far smoother than the eightball and would appear to be perfectly spherical although it is a little fat on the middle, but I guess it would roll quite straight anyway.
edit on 18-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ....



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Aazadan

No if you did this on 500 planets (given we had the data) there would be fractions of fractions. These are whole numbers and near accurate fractions, and don't these numbers look rather familiar, I mean we are talking about Revelation here: 18, 17, 10


Except that Mars is not 10, it's a little off from 10.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I firmly believe the Earth is flat & hollow. I personally sailed over the edge & merely flipped onto the bottom.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes I knew that about the comparison to an eight ball, but a bulge in the middle will not let it roll straight. It will DEFINITELY curve around as it rolled.

So because you use the average circumference that excuses you from approximating the distance with a polygon? In calculus when you use tangents to approximate curves, no one uses the = sign to represent it. They use the approximately equal to sign.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, if you use the average perimeter at least. But It's very close. Close enough I'd say.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I read that the notion that the earth was flat originated by the Spanish about 500 or so AD. It was round before they forced their beliefs on everyone they conquered. It was just a way of suppressing and controlling people. Have a bunch of so called experts telling everyone that they were misled in the past.

Not everyone bowed down to this brainwashing campaign. People accepted it as real because it was forced on them. It spread through most of the kingdoms of Europe and Asia over the centuries. Everyone was led to believe in a lie.

Look at the first page of the Jewish bible. Look at some ancient depictions. People knew the world was round, not just flat. But they were led to believe otherwise.

I do not know about whether people believed that the sun rotated around the earth. I have read nothing to show that was any different than history says it was. They did know the orbit of the moon well though. I kind of think they may have known that something was happening, and I think some people suspected that the earth rotated around the sun early on. If they said anything they would have been discredited though.
I believe the Sumerians left a tablet behind showing all the planet's rotating around the sun.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: truehumandna

Since I heard the truth about ancient people knowing the earth was spherical and examined the evidence, I have had about ten people tell me that at least we still don't believe the earth is flat. Most people were taught everyone thought the earth was flat when in fact it appears that the flat earth theory was never really widely accepted by ancient people. They passed on verbally that the earth was round but did not want to challenge the belief of the people in charge. It sounds that we haven't changed much, we talk behind the backs of the politicians yet never really tell them they are full of crap to their faces.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, if you use the average perimeter at least. But It's very close. Close enough I'd say.


If it were divinely created wouldn't you expect it to be perfect?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I think you onto it. Think about this (Pi/21) x 2 = 0.3
now 21/7 = 3

The decimal point can be ignored.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Eh, no? I can't get God's accordion to fit inside a crack in the boulder in my yard, that doesn't mean the Earth is not perfect. Besides, the drawing is not accurate by far, but I find the pattern interesting.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I think you onto it. Think about this (Pi/21) x 2 = 0.3
now 21/7 = 3

The decimal point can be ignored.



Hehe, I'd say you check your computing skills. The above is completely arbitrary. 22/7 has NOTHING to do with polygons or circles, other than the notion that a circle where the circumference is 22 the diameter is ALMOST 7. Even Plato argued that 22/7 isn't the exact pi. To find the circum-radius (or "mean diameter") of a regular polygon you have to fold up your sleeves above the elbow. Go to www.wolframalpha.com... and start searching for polygons and how to find the sides or the supposed limiting pi involved.

A polygon of 22 sides DOESNOT have a "circum-diameter" of 7. The PI involved in working with polygons is the EXACT same as the one used for working with circles. No rest for the weary...
edit on 22-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ...





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join