So either Jung was an incredibly tall guy - or this was more of a dream than a 'near death experience'.
Is there much difference between the two? He was pretty mad that the doctor brought him back. The doctor was in the experience also, and Jung questioned why. The doctor died soon after the event.
Obviously, since it hadn't been written yet. The idea of Earth as a flat disk is quite old, actually. I'm not sure why you start with 'even Plato', when you clearly realize that literate Greeks already knew the Earth is round since at least Pythagoras (3 centuries before Plato).
"The Hebrews had already claimed the earth hung on nothing, before that." As had the Egyptians. But how do we know what 'the Hebrews had claimed' exactly?
The Egyptians were pretty much assimilated into the Greek and Roman cultures by the time it would make any sense that they "figured" out science on their own.
The Greeks had a pantheon of gods, but did they have an established religion? There is still a difference between a ball in the center, floating in water, and the fact that some had already changed their thinking that the earth was a sphere that was suspended in space, and by some force was orbiting the sun.
Maybe they thought it was a square? And why is it that "The Babylonians should not have believed the earth was the center nor that it was a disk floating on water"?
Have you ever seen a square zodiac? The Greeks do not claim that they originated the idea, and they more than likely got it from the Babylonians, whether they want to give them credit or not. I doubt the "scientific" minded Greeks accepted that the earth changed orbits without proof, but they must have liked the idea that the earth was a sphere like the rest of the planets. If Plato did indeed think that the earth was suspended in space, that would have enabled them to view the earth as just another planet, like the rest. That did not change the point it was "still not the center". It would seem to put to rest a "disk floating on water" though.
I already pointed out, we do not know how the Babylonians knew. Ever heard of science "fiction" that later became science "fact"? If you claim they never even "put it on stones", then why is this thread even in existence? One may reject that they actually knew, or may have even observed it in process, but I doubt you can prove they never "thought" about it. There may never have been a planet that "moved through the solar system like a spaceship". It did seem to change the way humans viewed the earth.
My guess would be they all seemed to be on the same land mass, that was surrounded by water. Thinking that this land mass, earth, seemingly "rested" on water, was the point that formed their whole concept of what earth was. They were told that there was a "fixed" dome above them, and that there was motion of some of the allegedly fixed stars above them in the "fixed" area. Calling this area a hammered bracelet, came during the Latin period of the Bible. That is hardly what people thought before that time. I also question that any one before the last few centuries even knew about the asteroid belt, much less used it as an argument for evidence as a point in the solar system. I would point out that if the earth passed through this area, it may explain some of the larger impact points found all over the earth. I think that Berzerker mentioned it as the heavy bombardment period. I think that the earth was already formed though, and was not part of the asteroid area formation like Jupiter and Saturn. They picked up their moons during the formation process and the earth "missed" out on that phenomenon, or it would be hard to prove that it had just absorbed them instead of captured them as moons. I suppose there could have been another asteroid belt closer to the sun, that no longer exists. But for now there is only one, that can explain heavy bombardment. There is also the point that the solar system itself is moving through space and who knows what material is just waiting or traveling itself, and is drawn into the system, and which planet it gets attracted to first.
Of course this is easiest to observe when following a ship sailing away or towards you, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it is quite simple to observe the roundness of the Earth. To 'observe' the opposite, however, ('the Earth is flat') is impossible - which is quite a bit harder.
The earth as an orbiting sphere, democracy, the sinking Titanic, the theory of evolution, and the moon landing are pretty much accepted events and concepts that once accepted by the majority of humans cannot be un-accepted by the whole. Not that there are going to be some humans who question their reality. It is not "quite simple" for every human to observe what most humans accept. They accept it, because for the most part, they have no choice in the matter. And some people claim that is a good thing that people have no choice, or even access to some ideas; and that is called censorship for the "greater good".
It is quite easy to observe the earth as flat. Humans did if for thousands of years, well millions of years if one accepts "nature did it". They thought nothing of the "fact" they were wrong about the earth being flat. It is not easy now, but it was perfectly and naturally easy at one time.
Nobody said humans can't live in a desert. Obviously there are many humans who live in deserts. What was said that two million of them, living together in the desert for 40 years, wandering around, would have needed far more food and water than their surroundings could have provided, unless they happened to settle at a reliable, abundant oasis. That's not what Exodus says they did. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that there were so many (assuming that anything about the story of Moses makes sense, which it doesn't).
Really ??????
There is a country in the Caribbean (the Caribbean is a place on earth that generates billions of dollars in tourism a year) called Haiti. In 2013 it had a population of over 10 million. The people for the most part starve most of their lives and live in the poorest of conditions year after year, despite the well being of those who visit the area. The Hebrews were not on vacation. They were a displaced people group, even if by choice. More than likely, 50% of them did die there. But that does not mean that it was impossible. People had it worse off then, and were way more resilient than humans today, and we have plenty of examples of people groups who live longer than a mere 40 years on practically nothing. They seem to have no choice in the matter.
Are you suggesting that the first generation of stars to go supernova all did so at the same time, and that they only existed for FOUR DAYS?
That's not how it works. Even if a star zips through its stages of existence really fast, it's still going to be around for at least a hundred million years or so.
I am suggesting that time can be manipulated.
It is an accepted concept that light was present in the whole universe in less than a second, and then it was immediately dark. Not sure how popular it was, but some physicist thought it possible that there was an immediate second similar event. It is assumed that the solar system itself is a few generations removed, but it could be just one generation as much as it could be hundreds of generations after the first event. There is nothing that "dates" the universe at 14 billion years. I think that comes from the actual "observed" size of the universe. I think it was possible to observe that size when it happened if there would have been any one around to observe it. The event was immediate and observed immediately. It did not take 14 billion years to "finally" observe it. Due to the speed of light, even in 14 billion years, the universe will not be the "observable" size of a 28 billion years old universe. It will still only be the observable size of a 14 billion year old universe. It is a fact that we do not know what is beyond that 14 billion year "edge", nor can we know the actual size of the universe right now. For one thing because it may always be observed as a 14 billion year old universe we assume it has been getting "bigger" for that long. We have no clue how long it has been expanding, nor the speed of expansion other than it may be accelerating. Since humans have only been observing for a couple of hundred years, perhaps the size will be recalculated and I could be proven wrong. However in theory, 10,000 years ago, the universe may have only been observed as being 100,000 years old. One would have to do the proofs to explain how the math would be acceptable. Some may even claim that the speed of light is constant and that is not a given. The other accepted given is that while space is expanding, inner space or the molecular space is not. There is nothing to stop such expansion, and if that space has changed, then it would effect the so called, age of the universe as well.
So in theory the solar system could have had an accelerated formation 10,000 years ago, and it will remain the same for the next million? The solar system is rather simple with less than 100 major objects and it's size compared to the rest of the milky way is pretty insignificant and not that complex.
If the speed of light does not manipulate time, at the least it dictates it. Even if one could travel that fast it seems they would just go on for infinity and there would be no end at all.
