Calculations about the New Jerusalem

[BeauJangles]

34 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Maybe we'll be responsible for bringing back the animal life, particularly well-loved pets! (I don't know that I particularly believe that; I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.) Regardless, I DO believe that the animals will be re-created/resurrected with and for the New Earth. Why not? They did nothing wrong in the Fall (except, of course, for the "original snake")! And, if one of God's children that He loves so much deeply desired to have a particular pet back to life, wouldn't He grant that desire? In less than a heartbeat He would!

Yeah, more speculation, but isn't there at least the ring of truth in these thoughts?

Since there's mention of this, I have given a lot of thought and hope that our beloved pets could possibly join us once again. Many would say no, since it is said they have no soul per se. But still, Heaven would be even that much more wonderful if this might be in the plan, so to speak. God bless! 

Shalom, 

David/BeauJangles

[Retrobyter]

2 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Since there's mention of this, I have given a lot of thought and hope that our beloved pets could possibly join us once again. Many would say no, since it is said they have no soul per se. But still, Heaven would be even that much more wonderful if this might be in the plan, so to speak. God bless! 

Shalom, 

David/BeauJangles

Shabbat shalom, David.

Ah! But pets ARE "souls," every bit as much as we are; that is, they are "air-breathing creatures," whether mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibean! (I don't know about fish, but they DO get oxygen from the water they "breathe.")

So, for us animal lovers, it's even MORE important that we take to heart the definitions found in Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Look up "soul" and you will find:

5315 nefesh (neh'-fesh). From naafash; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. Animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental)
-- any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

5314 naafash (naw-fash'). A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, i.e. (figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air)
-- (be) refresh selves (-ed).

God just made it personal for mankind by taking the time to do a "hands-on" build:

Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

7 And the LORD God formed man (not "the body of the man") of the dust of the ground, and breathed (Hebrew: vayipach = "and-He-breathed") into his nostrils the breath of life (Hebrew: nishmat chayiym = "a-puff of-living-things"); and man became a living soul (air-breathing creature).

And, He created man in His "image":

Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)

26 And God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Those are the ONLY two differences between human beings and the animals.

And, once more, "heaven" is just the atmosphere, a NEW, CLEAN atmosphere, around the New Earth to come, and the New Jerusalem, will sit upon that New Earth and be its capital city and its Capitol.

I have absolutely NO DOUBT that we will see our beloved pets once again, and this time, we can be sure that they will live forever, as well.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, to all!

I'm bringing this topic back to people's attention because (1) I've been busy with the topic "What is a soul?" (as well as others), and (2) I've been doing more calculations that I'd like to share.

Do you know how far it is to the horizon from where you are? It depends on a number of factors, like are you surrounded by mountains OR do you live upon a mountain on an otherwise flat plane? Do you live near the ocean or a Great Lake and the farthest you can see only has flat, still waters?

Think of the radius of the earth ("R," 3963.12 miles) being everywhere the same, and the horizon to an observer is the tangent to the earth's surface at that distant point. Being tangent to a circle with the radius of the circle touching that point of contact, then the radius of the earth and this tangent line of the observer's eyes to the horizon ("d") would be at a right angle. Now, the observer's height ("h" in miles to keep it consistent) plus the radius ("R") of the earth would be a hypotenuse of the right triangle that these lines would form. Therefore, however high one's eyes would be (say, six foot for some men) determines the distance to the horizon (on a level surface, like sea level) such that R^2 + d^2 = (R+h)^2. (Such that "R^2" means "R squared" or "R raised to the 2nd power".) Rearranging this equation and solving for "d," gives us the formula for our distance (d) to the horizon:

d^2 = (R+h)^2 - R^2

d = sqrt ((R+h)^2 - R^2)
[sqrt (...) means to take the square root of what is inside the parentheses]

d = sqrt (R^2 + 2Rh + h^2 - R^2)

d = sqrt (2Rh + h^2)

d = sqrt (h x (2R + h))

Simply "plug and chug" from here, and one will find that the horizon is about 3 miles away from the observer. If one is standing on Mount Everest, 29,029 feet high + 6 feet of the observer's height = 29,035 feet x (1 mile / 5280 feet) = 5.499 miles high, then plug this distance in for "h" and solve for "d." One will find that one can see 208.85 miles away to the horizon!

That's a long, long way; HOWEVER, how far can one see from the pinnacle (or roof) of the New Jerusalem, which is 1379.868687 miles high? One can use the same formula and plug the height of the New Jerusalem into the "h" of the formula (adding 6' for the height of a person at the pinnacle or on the roof), and one will discover that the distance one can see to the horizon is 3,583.4638 miles!

Now, let's switch it around:

Suppose we were standing on a point where we could just see the pinnacle (or roof) on the edge of the horizon. (Remember that the city GLOWS BRIGHTLY with the GLORY of God. The horizon is still 3 miles away from us, but how far is the pinnacle (or roof) from the horizon away from us? This time, we measure this distance with just the height of the New Jerusalem to the horizon and then add the 3 miles. That would be 3,583.4631 + 3 = 3,586.4631 or just call it 3,586.5 miles away! So what happens to your view when you get, say, within 2,000 miles? You start to see this blood-red object, which I believe is a pyramid, loom higher and higher over the horizon! It keeps growing until it takes up a THIRD of the sky!

I have this little drawing I did of trees in the distance and a house and a mound of dirt (what can I say, I work on a site being developed by construction workers) and this HUGE pyramid off in the distance. One guy off to the left says, "That's so awesome! How soon will we get there?" The other guy off to the right says, "Do you have ANY idea how far away we still are?!"

Then, I got to thinking. "Do you? It's approximately 2,000 miles away, yet!"

Now, I know that there are rendering programs, computer applications (apps), out there that could render this for us, but I do everything by hand unless I can work up the formulae I need and put them in a spreadsheet, but I would absolutely LOVE to see someone arrive at this HUGE city in a movie clip! Can you imagine?

Yes, I CAN imagine it, and I do it frequently to remember what we have to look forward to! It's with GREAT ANTICIPATION that I envision the New Jerusalem!

Edited February 6, 2021 by Retrobyter

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, brothers and sisters.

I know I've probably said this before, but I'd like to give you the two greatest arguments that the New Jerusalem is in a pyramid shape rather than a cube, based upon the arguments from above:

First, let's take a trip toward the New Jerusalem from the distance of 3583.5 miles in a vehicle capable of traveling 600 miles per hour, like a private jet airplane does, cruising at an altitude of 45000 feet, which is a little more than 8 and a half miles high. What would we see, and how long would it take to get there?

Well before we take off, we can see the sun in the east and the moon, in its first quarter, overhead. The skies, as always, are clear; not a cloud in the sky! First, it would take 2,223.48 miles / 600 mph = 3.7058 hours or 3 hours 42 minutes to get there! All the while, we're seeing this HUGE triangle (or rectangular object) getting larger and larger until it fills a THIRD of the sky, TOWERING over the height of our cruising altitude! As we get closer and closer to the city, we can no longer make out the pinnacle angle (or the side angles of the roof) as the points blend into the flatness of the side of the city that looms ahead of us! All we see now is a red wall going up at an angle that looks for all intents and purposes like a half-disk of unknown radius! The only difference we would notice between the pyramid and the cube at this point would be the angle this huge red wall would ascend.

From our height in the jet, we would only be able to see 260 miles to the horizon; so we would never see the bright light emanating from the northernmost gate of the three gates on this eastern side of the city, 460 miles away and on the opposite side the bright light emanating from the southernmost gate another 460 miles away, but, as we continue to get closer to the base of the city, we can see the bright light emanating from the central gate beginning to become more and more noticeable, as we come within the 260-mile distance to the horizon, and we can start to see the first foundation of the city sunk deeply into the earth's crust.

We would see a river running away from the city, emerging from the gate and diverging into other rivers as its river basin grows to water the earth. The rivers are surrounded by trees that grow abundantly, full of life, as woods that provide shelter for many varieties of animals. All the animals are now herbivorous, as they once were before the Flood. There are small animals, like rabbits, squirrels, mice, and larger animals, like bears, mountain lions, and triceratops, or as we call them today, Jackson's chameleons. The huge brachiosaurs are back and lounging in the basins formed by the river. The tyrannosaurs are back, stripping leaves and small twigs and branches from the trees, as their teeth were designed to do. 

As we find a clearing with an airport built for the kings of the earth to land and find entry to the city, we are CONSTANTLY - no matter what time of the day it is - "walking in the light of this city's" huge wall that is beside us! As a crystalline wall made of jasper, the blood stone, through which "blood" all must pass to enter the city, it may be transparent, although usually at best the gem is translucent.

Anyway, the first reason, based upon this, is that this city is SO LARGE that the measure of its size in influenced by the circumference of the earth! Despite the weird turns THEORETICAL physics has taken in the last few decades, NORMAL physics - PRACTICAL, everyday physics - only truly knows of four dimensions when one considers time a dimension, and things like Einstein's THEORY of General Relativity have only succeeded in "gumming up the works!"

Theoretical physics has taken us down "Alice's rabbit hole" to places God would not have us go. I used to have a paper by some of the colleagues of the Institute for Creation Research that proposed a four-field theory that easily explained the "predicted proofs" of Einstein's Relativity without actually succumbing to the Theory! It was simply based upon four field vectors that were like Maxwell's equations only for gravitation and magnetic forces.

We just need to get back to reality instead of believing in so much fiction called "fact" in the modern theories to which the associations of scientists today have succumbed.

We are told that the gates shall always stand open and we're told that the city will have commodities and people entering into those gates continuously. We are told that the city is aligned with north, with four walls facing in the four compass directions. We are told that the river of the water of life flows down the streets of the city, and it is only rational that the streets, with their rivers, will eventually lead to all twelve gates and onto the new earth. Unless we have ENORMOUS waterfalls into the atmosphere generating significant damage to the landing zones of all that water, all of this leads to the conclusion that this city will lie upon the earth's surface. Indeed, we are also told that this city will "come down from God OUT OF THE SKY (Greek ek tou ouranou)" to the new earth. There's no middle ground between the "sky" and the "ground." If it comes "out of the sky," then it LANDS! Thus, its size, 1,379-86/99 miles, affects its design for and upon the new earth, which will be the same as the present earth having its surface purged of human corruption by fire.

The second greatest reason for the shape of the city is the river of the water of life.

Free standing buildings are not enough to describe a city 1379+ miles high. A structure for the walls of the city being a sphere or a cube or a cube within a sphere, would not be practical or feasible upon the surface of the earth. However, IF the city were a cube, then where is God's throne? Wouldn't the obvious assumption be AT THE CENTER of the cube? In a sphere, wouldn't the obvious assumption for God's throne be AT THE CENTER of the sphere, as well? Then, this begs the question: How does the river of the water of life provide water to the UPPER HALVES of either the cube or the sphere, as the structure sits upon the surface of the earth?

IF the city will be a pyramid shape, which could be the reason why there's no mention of a roof or of the city being open to space, where would the throne of God be assumed to be? Wouldn't it be in the PINNACLE - the CAPSTONE - of the pyramid? What do we read about the SOURCE of the river of the water of life?

Revelation 22:1-2 (KJV)

1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, PROCEEDING OUT OF THE THRONE OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Wouldn't this allow for an EASY delivery system for that water of life or living water (moving water) to be evenly distributed to all parts of the city before the excess is delivered outside of the city by means of the streets to the gates?

Just some points to ponder.

[Retrobyter]

5 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

I did just what you did a few years ago,  using 1500 miles high.  (I used 1 mile = 8 furlongs).  I don't remember my exact answer,  but I believe the distance of visibility was around 4000 miles +/-).   My conclusion?   The NJ would be visible in all of Europe,  most of Asia, nearly to Tokyo,  virtually all of Africa,  and most of Australia, and part of Greenland.   Thanks for sharing. 

Be Blessed 

The PuP 

P.S.  my method was simply to add the earth's radius to the height of the NJ, and determine the point of tangency.

Shalom, Da Puppers.

You're welcome and thank you for the encouraging words. Yes, I followed the same method, but using the Roman mile markers for the "stad," the basis for the Greek "stadion," merely TRANSLATED as "furlong" since the KJV. Why use the Roman "stad?" Well, why have the Roman mile markers all over Europe been preserved despite the demise of the Roman Empire? I believe that God Himself preserved them and the words of Scripture so there'd be no mistake as to the measurements used.

I used to use the 1500-mile theory, as well, but have since refined the measure to 1379.868686... miles, calculated by 12,000 stads x 607.142222... feet (607+32/225 feet) per stad, the average size of the Roman "stad" taken from ACTUAL MILE MARKERS throughout the ancient Roman Empire in Europe and Great Britain (x 1 mile per 5280 feet), which can still be measured today.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Retrobyter

[Diaste]

Are we doing this again?

It's interesting how something we have never seen [no one has] is compared to what we have seen. 

Temporal evidence is not proof of spiritual reality. 

Pyramid:

"a shape or structure with a polygon for its base and three or more triangles for its sides which meet to form the top. pyramid."

Cube:

A cube is a three dimensional shape that features all right angles and a height, width and depth that are all equal. 

The most common understanding of Rev 21:16-17 is a cube. If you said the latter to a construction professional he would build a cube.

To get a pyramid you would  relate the former.

But hey, might as well change the simple to the complex casting doubt on all understanding of even the the most basic of concepts.

Good job.

 

 

 

[Retrobyter]

 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Are we doing this again?

It's interesting how something we have never seen [no one has] is compared to what we have seen. 

Temporal evidence is not proof of spiritual reality. 

Pyramid:

"a shape or structure with a polygon for its base and three or more triangles for its sides which meet to form the top. pyramid."

Cube:

A cube is a three dimensional shape that features all right angles and a height, width and depth that are all equal. 

The most common understanding of Rev 21:16-17 is a cube. If you said the latter to a construction professional he would build a cube.

To get a pyramid you would  relate the former.

But hey, might as well change the simple to the complex casting doubt on all understanding of even the the most basic of concepts.

Good job.

Shalom, Diaste.

Well, that's what YOU might see, but you're not correct:

How can I communicate this to you? And, how can I communicate this to you so it STICKS?!

Actually, if one says Revelation 21:16-17 to a construction professional, the construction professional - if he is wise - will ask for more information. Look at it again; in fact, let's look at the Greek while we're doing so, so you can see that I'm not saying something that is based on a particular version of Scripture:

Apokalupsis Ieesou Christou 21:16-17

16 Kai hee polis tetragoonas keitai, kai to meekos autees hoson kai to platos. Kai emetreesen teen polin too kalamoo epi stadioon doodeka chiliadoon; to meekos kai to platos kai to hupsos autees isa estin.
17 Kai emetreesen to teichos autees hekaton tesserakonta tessaroon peekoon, metron anthroopou, ho estin aggelou.

16 Kai = 16 And/Also
hee = the
polis = city
tetragoonas = four-angled
keitai, = lies,
kai = and/also
to = the
meekos = length
autees = of-it
hoson = like
kai = and/also
to = the
platos. = width.
Kai = And/Also
emetreesen = he-measured
teen = the
polin = city
too = with-the
kalamoo = hollow-reed
epi = upon/above/at
stadioon = Roman-stadia/stads
doodeka = twelve
chiliadoon; = thousands;
to = the
meekos = length
kai = and/also
to = the
platos = width
kai = and/also
to = the
hupsos = height
autees = of-it
isa = equal
estin. = are.
17 Kai = 17 And/Also
emetreesen = he-measured
to = the
teichos = wall
autees = of-it
hekaton = one-hundred
tesserakonta = forty
tessaroon = four
peekoon, = cubits,
metron = a-measure
anthroopou, = of-a-man,
ho = the/that
estin = is
aggelou. = of-a-messenger.

Putting it back together in English, 

A-Revelation of-Yeshua` Messiah 21:16-17

16 And/Also the city four-angled lies, and/also the length of-it like and/also the width. And/Also he-measured the city with-the hollow-reed upon/above/at Roman-stadia/stads twelve thousands; the length and/also the width and/also the height of-it equal are.
17 And/Also he-measured the wall of-it one-hundred forty-four cubits, a-measure of-a-man, the/that is of-a-messenger.

Let's look at a few versions:

Revelation 21:16-17 (KJV)

16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Revelation 21:16-17 (NKJV with note added)

16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand [Lit. stadia, about 1,380 miles in all]furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.  
17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel.

Revelation 21:16-17 (NIV, with notes added)

16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia [That is, about 1,400 miles or about 2,200 kilometers] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 
17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits [That is, about 200 feet or about 65 meters] thick [Or high].

Revelation 21:16-17 (NASB, with notes added)

16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the [Lit reed] rod, [Possibly about 1,380 miles or 2,220 km; a Roman stadion perhaps averaged 607 ft. or 185 m] twelve thousand stadia; its length, width, and height are equal. 
17 And he measured its wall, [Possibly about 216 ft. or 65 m; a cubit is about 18 in. or 45 cm] 144 cubits, by human [Lit measure] measurements, which are also angelic measurements.

Revelation 21:16-17 (BSB with notes added)

16 The city lies foursquare, with its width the same as its length. And he measured the city with the rod, and all its dimensions were equal—12,000 stadia [12,000 stadia  is approximately 1,380 miles or 2,220 kilometers.] in length and width and height. 
17 And he measured its wall to be 144 cubits, [144 cubits  is approximately 216 feet or 65.8 meters. The measure could indicate either height or thickness.] by the human measure the angel was using.

Revelation 21:16-17 (CSB with note added)

16 The city is laid out in a square; its length and width are the same. He measured the city with the rod at 12,000 stadia. [A stadion (sg) = about 600 feet; 12,000 stadia = 1,400 miles.] Its length, width, and height are equal. 
17 Then he measured its wall, 144 cubits according to human measurement, which the angel used.

Revelation 21:16-17 (HCS with note added)

16 The city is laid out in a square; its length and width are the same. He measured the city with the rod at 12,000 stadia. [A stadion (sg) = about 600 feet; 12,000 stadia = 1,400 miles.] Its length, width, and height are equal.  17 Then he measured its wall, 144 cubits according to human measurement, which the angel used.

Please understand that I'm not trying to change anything; however, John said NOTHING about a "CUBE!" Measurements are NOT substance! Measurements are DISTANCES ONLY! One could follow that the FLOOR was two-dimensionally a square, but not that the whole structure was built of six squares; he only told us that the height of the structure was the same measurement as that of the length and the width of the structure!

Again, what of the "roof?" DID he see a "roof" or was it "open on top?" He didn't say! So, anything that we add is speculation, at best. It's an argument from silence. HOWEVER, mathematical speculation can be a help.

I wish I could show you this in a movie clip. I just don't know how, but picture this, if you can. Please, bear with me:

You have your cube-to-be with four square walls, orthogonal to the base (which is also not given to us. All we are told is that the length is orthogonal [at right angles] to the width), and the height has the same measurement as the length and the width.

BUT, WE HAVE NO ROOF, YET, that we are told. For all we know, IT'S OPEN TO THE VACUUM OF SPACE! Whether we need air or not, the trees need air to live at the top of the cube!

So, let's begin to angle the walls inward on all four sides, closing up the space on top: As we do so, the top of each wall begins to shrink and the walls begin to take on a trapezoid shape as the corners angle in toward the central vertical line of the "once-a-cube." But, now we've lost some of the height of the structure; so, we have to stretch the vertical length of each wall, bringing them back up to the plane defined by the height of the original cube. However, we've still got an open-to-space roof; so we push the walls in a little more, narrowing the tops of the wall proportionately and extending the tops until they're back to the correct height overall. We still have an open roof; so, we continue to push the walls in, narrowing them and extending them at the top of each wall until we finally close the hole in the roof. We can go no farther.

Our trapezoidal walls have narrowed down to a single point at the top and we need go no farther upward with the walls. And so, we find that we have constructed a regular, four-sided pyramid with a square base (that we've had all along) and four triangular walls that converge to a single point - the pinnacle - at the top, closing the hole to open space. We also find that this pyramid still touches the initial plane of the "roof" that was missing. Thus, it still have an overall height that equals the length and the width!

There's more to say, but I've already been long-winded; so, done for now.

[Diaste]

On 2/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, Retrobyter said:

 

Shalom, Diaste.

Well, that's what YOU might see, but you're not correct:

How can I communicate this to you? And, how can I communicate this to you so it STICKS?!

Actually, if one says Revelation 21:16-17 to a construction professional, the construction professional - if he is wise - will ask for more information. Look at it again; in fact, let's look at the Greek while we're doing so, so you can see that I'm not saying something that is based on a particular version of Scripture:

He would take it on the face since he is in the applied geometry sector. 

"Build a structure that the same dimensions in length width and height." Is grade school stuff. 

On 2/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, Retrobyter said:

 

Please understand that I'm not trying to change anything; however, John said NOTHING about a "CUBE!" Measurements are NOT substance! Measurements are DISTANCES ONLY! One could follow that the FLOOR was two-dimensionally a square, but not that the whole structure was built of six squares; he only told us that the height of the structure was the same measurement as that of the length and the width of the structure!

Again, what of the "roof?" DID he see a "roof" or was it "open on top?" He didn't say! So, anything that we add is speculation, at best. It's an argument from silence. HOWEVER, mathematical speculation can be a help.

Indeed. And you are opining a closed structure. A 3d structure equal in L,W and H with an open top is also plausible and the simplest understanding. 

Waxing unequivocal in this diminishes the conversation. You are speculating. That's fine as long as it's understood that's the origin.

On 2/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, Retrobyter said:

I wish I could show you this in a movie clip. I just don't know how, but picture this, if you can. Please, bear with me:

You have your cube-to-be with four square walls, orthogonal to the base (which is also not given to us. All we are told is that the length is orthogonal [at right angles] to the width), and the height has the same measurement as the length and the width.

BUT, WE HAVE NO ROOF, YET, that we are told. For all we know, IT'S OPEN TO THE VACUUM OF SPACE! Whether we need air or not, the trees need air to live at the top of the cube!

Assuming at the time NJ exists there is 'space' and it's depressurized. Larry Niven proposed with walls high enough density and gravity provide adequate means for retaining breathable air. His walls were 1000 miles high. NJ has walls 1300+ miles high. 

This is a possible solution to the problem if there is no roof. No evidence of a roof, no evidence of no roof is provided in the description. 

On 2/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, Retrobyter said:

So, let's begin to angle the walls inward on all four sides, closing up the space on top: As we do so, the top of each wall begins to shrink and the walls begin to take on a trapezoid shape as the corners angle in toward the central vertical line of the "once-a-cube." But, now we've lost some of the height of the structure; so, we have to stretch the vertical length of each wall, bringing them back up to the plane defined by the height of the original cube. However, we've still got an open-to-space roof; so we push the walls in a little more, narrowing the tops of the wall proportionately and extending the tops until they're back to the correct height overall. We still have an open roof; so, we continue to push the walls in, narrowing them and extending them at the top of each wall until we finally close the hole in the roof. We can go no farther.

Our trapezoidal walls have narrowed down to a single point at the top and we need go no farther upward with the walls. And so, we find that we have constructed a regular, four-sided pyramid with a square base (that we've had all along) and four triangular walls that converge to a single point - the pinnacle - at the top, closing the hole to open space. We also find that this pyramid still touches the initial plane of the "roof" that was missing. Thus, it still have an overall height that equals the length and the width!

There's more to say, but I've already been long-winded; so, done for now.

It's not that I don't get it. I see a resistance to remain inside the description and free form speculation. This reminds me of Eratosthenes. As a person who applied Trig in a real world sense with a great deal of experience in the mistakes and inaccurate information, I wonder how Eratosthenes 'knew' the distance of the sun from earth. He didn't. If he got it right it was blind luck. 

If we stay with what is known the truth is quite different. 

[Retrobyter]

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

He would take it on the face since he is in the applied geometry sector. 

"Build a structure that the same dimensions in length width and height." Is grade school stuff. 

Shalom, Diaste.

 And, grade school stuff is what you're getting! What kind of architect would be satisfied with that?! Besides, we're talking about GOD-designed things, here! That's FAR BEYOND what man can sit down and design!

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

Indeed. And you are opining a closed structure. A 3d structure equal in L,W and H with an open top is also plausible and the simplest understanding. 

Waxing unequivocal in this diminishes the conversation. You are speculating. That's fine as long as it's understood that's the origin.

Assuming at the time NJ exists there is 'space' and it's depressurized. Larry Niven proposed with walls high enough density and gravity provide adequate means for retaining breathable air. His walls were 1000 miles high. NJ has walls 1300+ miles high. 

But, we're not talking about a single level here! We're talking about at least TWELVE foundational levels, each about 115 miles apart! That's why I am ASSURED that these walls not only go all the way to the top, but that it is also closed to the exosphere. We're not talking about walls 1,000 miles high; we're talking about walls only as high as from the last foundational level! 

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

This is a possible solution to the problem if there is no roof. No evidence of a roof, no evidence of no roof is provided in the description. 

RIGHT! That's why it's called "speculation!" It's an argument from silence! On the other hand, there's enough evidence to suggest that God's Throne will be in the highest section from the twelfth, amethyst foundation to the pinnacle! Again, no matter how much gravity might be reduced at that height, gravity still applies! So, how does water FLOW UPHILL?! It CAN'T! It DOESN'T! If it has to be PUMPED to greater heights, that's an expenditure of energy that is UNNECESSARY! And, I believe we can argue for a PERFECTLY EFFICIENT GOD!

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

It's not that I don't get it. I see a resistance to remain inside the description and free form speculation. This reminds me of Eratosthenes. As a person who applied Trig in a real world sense with a great deal of experience in the mistakes and inaccurate information, I wonder how Eratosthenes 'knew' the distance of the sun from earth. He didn't. If he got it right it was blind luck. 

If we stay with what is known the truth is quite different. 

Haven't you ever investigated how Eratosthenes did his calculations for the size of the earth based on his measurements of the angles of the sun's rays at various points on the globe? THAT was his contribution, not the distance of the sun from the earth!!

Regarding the cube theory, have you just taken the simple formula of the relationship of the size of the city to the size of the earth and compared that to the central angle that the city maps out verses the entire central angle of the circumference of the earth?

1379.868687 miles / 24901 miles = central angle the city maps / total central angle of the earth                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

The entire earth shall NOT be destroyed, merely it's surface - what mankind has been able to affect - shall be destroyed. Furthermore, it's destroyed by heat. No matter what happens to the materials the SAME ATOMS SHALL PERSIST, regardless what molecules they form! Therefore, there shall be NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the circumference of the present earth and that of the third earth, the new earth, to come!

Therefore, even your precious cube shall be affected by the size of the city compared to the size of the earth! "Down" on one side of the cube will still be almost 20 degrees different than "down" on the opposite side of the cube! So, ....

Which way will it be? Will the walls be plumb to the floor, being orthogonal to the base of the city? OR, will the walls remain at a consistent distance from each other, slanting in about 10 degrees on both sides to make them parallel to the central line of the height of the city in the middle of the city? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! 

If you keep the walls orthogonal to the base of the city on both sides, then the "roof" will be physically LONGER than the base of the city!

If you keep the walls parallel to each other, then the "roof" will be MEASURABLY shorter than the length of the base of the city! The walls will be angled it about 10 degrees; so, how can you determine that it is in fact a "cube?"

It just doesn't WORK! One way or another, the cube theory BREAKS DOWN in reality!

With a pyramid, it DOESN'T MATTER! So what if the walls are angled in a bit more? They were angled in from the beginning!

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Diaste.

 And, grade school stuff is what you're getting! What kind of architect would be satisfied with that?! Besides, we're talking about GOD-designed things, here! That's FAR BEYOND what man can sit down and design!

But, we're not talking about a single level here! We're talking about at least TWELVE foundational levels, each about 115 miles apart! That's why I am ASSURED that these walls not only go all the way to the top, but that it is also closed to the exosphere. We're not talking about walls 1,000 miles high; we're talking about walls only as high as from the last foundational level! 

Interesting vision. I never said there was a single level. It's a city, not an empty box. Interesting interpretation of 'foundation' too. Since we are just throwing things out there to see what sticks lets interpret 'foundations' as lower levels supporting the structure. We have billions of tons of evidence for this. From the foundations then the walls rise an additional 1333 miles high. 

It's not said there is any thickness to the foundations though there must be and they aren't made of precious stones, they are garnished or adorned with precious stones. I assume we can see the foundations as John saw them so they sit above ground. Truly impressive. 

And there is nothing illogical about many thousands of structures inside the main structure that could and would support a roof of 2 million square miles, if there is a roof, if the laws of physics are actual laws and not limits on man, or more like suggestions than actual rules. 

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

RIGHT! That's why it's called "speculation!" It's an argument from silence! On the other hand, there's enough evidence to suggest that God's Throne will be in the highest section from the twelfth, amethyst foundation to the pinnacle! Again, no matter how much gravity might be reduced at that height, gravity still applies! So, how does water FLOW UPHILL?! It CAN'T! It DOESN'T! If it has to be PUMPED to greater heights, that's an expenditure of energy that is UNNECESSARY! And, I believe we can argue for a PERFECTLY EFFICIENT GOD!

There is no evidence of the location of the throne. If there is please offer it.  

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Haven't you ever investigated how Eratosthenes did his calculations for the size of the earth based on his measurements of the angles of the sun's rays at various points on the globe? THAT was his contribution, not the distance of the sun from the earth!!

Don't deflect. I never said Eratosthenes calculated the distance of the sun. 

Everyone ignores the fact he ASSUMED the sun to be a great distance. He didn't KNOW how far away the sun was from earth. I did the calcs and got the same values as he did. Then I did the calcs based on known observable data. Two completely different stories emerged.  But I don't care about that. Eratosthenes made a wild, unjustified determination about two wholly unknown factors. That's trigonometric blasphemy.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Regarding the cube theory, have you just taken the simple formula of the relationship of the size of the city to the size of the earth and compared that to the central angle that the city maps out verses the entire central angle of the circumference of the earth?

1379.868687 miles / 24901 miles = central angle the city maps / total central angle of the earth.                                                                                                                                      

The entire earth shall NOT be destroyed, merely it's surface - what mankind has been able to affect - shall be destroyed. Furthermore, it's destroyed by heat. No matter what happens to the materials the SAME ATOMS SHALL PERSIST, regardless what molecules they form! Therefore, there shall be NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the circumference of the present earth and that of the third earth, the new earth, to come!

Oh boy....

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Therefore, even your precious cube shall be affected by the size of the city compared to the size of the earth! "Down" on one side of the cube will still be almost 20 degrees different than "down" on the opposite side of the cube! So, ....

Here we go. The globe earth. It's denied the curve has anything to do with building cities and now here you are using it as a major obstacle.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Which way will it be? Will the walls be plumb to the floor, being orthogonal to the base of the city? OR, will the walls remain at a consistent distance from each other, slanting in about 10 degrees on both sides to make them parallel to the central line of the height of the city in the middle of the city? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! 

You're right, something would have to give way. One must allow for all possibilities including a flat plane.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

If you keep the walls orthogonal to the base of the city on both sides, then the "roof" will be physically LONGER than the base of the city!

If you keep the walls parallel to each other, then the "roof" will be MEASURABLY shorter than the length of the base of the city! The walls will be angled it about 10 degrees; so, how can you determine that it is in fact a "cube?"

Oh I get it. Argued the problem in front of blank faces and far away gazes. The cognitive dissonance induces catatonia in the centroid of the mechanism and reality is shrugged off.

We have the same problem in building cityscapes all over the earth this very day. 

Funny how you never see an architect design a building with a bigger cap to keep the walls plumb. And it's a serious issue in a distance of 500' feet. A 700' tall structure would have a noticeable lean within it's footprint and in relation to other buildings in the cityscape. We don't see it. 

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It just doesn't WORK! One way or another, the cube theory BREAKS DOWN in reality!

Reality? What's that? Yours? Mine? 

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

With a pyramid, it DOESN'T MATTER! So what if the walls are angled in a bit more? They were angled in from the beginning!