The Model Model

One of the concepts that I have found to be an effective tool in my life is the view that all people, either implicitly or explicitly, use mental models as a way to comprehend how the world works.

I call this concept “The Model Model” and I use this model repeatedly when I seek to explain my thinking to other people.

My personal experience is that model making is mostly implicit and that people do not have a conscious realisation that they are, in fact, using a model when they do their analytical work.

While I regularly and repeatedly use implicit models, the “intellectual me” seeks to be explicit in the models that I am using.  I do this because being explicit has proven to be an effective way to communicate my ideas to other people.

Advertisement

39 thoughts on “The Model Model

  1. NiciesMan

    Hi again.
    I have a question about your model of the Earth/Sun system:
    (This problem applies on both a flat or spherical Earth)
    How can the Sun be seen (to also appear as sometimes directly above in the sky, ~zero degrees from straight upward) in the sky from all places from North to South? On one flat Earth model, the Sun is revolving around the middle of the Earth, so how can it be seen equally from the equator (the only place it would be directly above-head) as from the northern- or southern-most lands? One would think the time of day would be different depending on one latitude.
    Please help me understand.
    Thank you.

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      The only time no shadow is cast is when the sun is directly above you. My home is 38oS and there is always a shadow on the south side of upright objects even at the summer solstice. I don’t think your recollection of shadows is correct.

      Like

      Reply
      1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

        I would suggest that the sun is so bright that you can’t tell the difference even if it is dimmer at its furthest point from you. However, you clearly notice the difference in heat transfer when it is closest and furthest away from you… its called summer and winter.

        Like

  2. NiciesMan

    In my experience, the Sun looks very close, like it’s not hundreds of miles away south. If it’s closer to antarctica in the Winter, why does is it not appear more by the horizon to the south?
    The Sun moves in the sky over the year, but not as much as I would expect.
    Thanks

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      The maximum angular elevation that the sun reaches on any particular day is much higher in summer than it is in winter. In other words, is DOES appear closer to the horizon in winter than it does in summer.

      Like

      Reply
  3. NiciesMan

    (Now is not a good time for me to be personally testing this, because it’s summer where I live..)
    My dear, I am very grateful to YHVH for all the help (whether large or small, needed or unneeded) I’m getting in my journey for truth, and having blogs with knowledgeable people on various subjects to comment on with questions is a blessing. Blessed is the Deity. And thank you for answering my comments.
    Ok, another thing I saw was a video (https://vimeo.com/208466944) where someone filmed a five day time-lapse of the Sun not setting at all in Antarctica. I’m not sure what season it was.
    If the Sun rotates on a circular path, whether it was winter or summer, how could that part of Antarctica be illuminated for days on end while the Sun can be seen itself?
    I’ve heard of the caustic effect, by which possibly the perimeter of the Earth (Antarctica) can be illuminated, but how can the light-source (in this case the Sun) itself be seen?
    (Also doesn’t a similar 24-hour sun/darkness effect happen to the North Pole?)
    Finally, a town called Ushuaia at the very southernmost part of South America in Argentina gets 17-hour sunlight in December (I believe every day or around that much). That should be relevant for a model.
    Thank you and may YHVH bless you again.

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      I think the comments on that video are worthy of being read. Ushuaia is only 54oS, equivalent to Inuit territories of Labrador and Newfoundland, not very far north at all. Minsk is 70oN and has a much warmer climate than Ushuaia. The long summer days of sunlight can be expected by the reflection of the sun off the dome over the earth, if we assume the biblical model to be true.

      Like

      Reply
      1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

        you had several questions, the film about 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica and 17 hours of daylight in Ushuaia. The many comments are casting doubt on the veracity of the “antarctic film”. I consider antarctic “science’ to have the same plausibility as space station science. The political and legal barriers raised to prevent me from verifying the experience for myself allow me to dismiss all such evidence as hearsay. With regard to Ushuaia I think that the amount of sunlight received there is consistent with a sun circling close to the undersurface of the dome at 55o South. The evidence that the dome is closer to the ground at this latitude is provided here https://www.dwd.de/EN/ourservices/global_air_pressure/luftdruckglobal.html . Notice that barometric air pressure falls to its lowest point at the southern most cut off point of the graph. Moreover, there is NO data provided south of 70oS. That’s a bit odd, considering there are large towns at 70o North.

        Like

  4. NiciesMan

    Do you mind if I ask many questions about this (the flat Earth model) still? I am seeing various compelling arguments for the Earth being flat.. but also that it’s a sphere..
    This is a very difficult thing to figure out..

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      Please feel free to ask any questions on any topic. I will remind you that I can state with absolute certainty that, for all practical purposes, you (NiciesMan) assume that the earth is both flat and unmoving. By flat I mean all points of equal “Reduced Level” lie on completely flat, horizontal plane and by “unmoving” I mean that you never make any allowance for the motion of the Earth in your day to day life.

      Like

      Reply
      1. NiciesMan

        Thank you.
        I certainly do rely on that assumption.
        (I wonder what globe believers make of birds, planes, and drones, under which the Earth NEVER moves. Also, the elliptical orbit claimed involves the Earth orbiting the Sun at different speeds throughout the year, so one would think [Newton’s first law] that everything would be destroyed from the Earth’s change in velocity.)
        Ok, my first question (thank you): do you know how to calculate the distance to the horizon based on height on a flat Earth?

        Like

  5. NiciesMan

    Hi.
    I have a couple more questions:
    1: Do you have a model as to why the Moon appears rotated depending on one’s latitude?
    2: What are your thoughts on the phenomenon of (during/after sunset) mountains casting upwards shadows onto clouds when the Sun is behind them (apparently sometimes happens)?
    3: You (thank you!!) linked me to something with Dr. Steven Lin and I purchased his book, “The Dental Diet,” and am reading it. It is still unclear to me if, as a 14 year old, my teeth can be straightened without the need for braces. Does eating proper food straighten your teeth[??]
    Thank you.

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      I think the appearance of the moon is consistent with the “inverted snow globe” model of the earth, that is to say the model explained in the book of Enoch and that the shape of the landmasses in the middle kingdom is consistent with the UN Flag. If you think of the middle kingdom as a clock face, the moon rotates around clock face like a circular light on the end of one of the hands on the clock. I haven’t thought about whether the circular light rotates on the end of the clock hand or is fixed. People viewing the light from north, south, east and west of it will perceive the orientation of the light differently from their different perspectives.

      I think all observed phenomena of the sun and shadows is consistent with the description provided in the book of Enoch.

      With regard to straightening teeth i have no particular wisdom to espouse.

      Like

      Reply
  6. NiciesMan

    Hi again.
    Thanks for imparting whatever cosmological wisdom you have.

    Now I am wondering: what do you think of the very odd shapes of the sunlit areas over the course of a day on the flat Earth model?
    On the globe, the light illuminating one side of a ball is accurate (presumably…) to what is seen, but on the flat Earth, sunlight areas are very odd shapes.
    God bless.

    Like

    Reply
      1. NiciesMan

        Here’s one:
        https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fuj2f0hqmzey21.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=08056baa05eb8d9e0ec647014937ad55e1c5791d90c08d0bebffa04fbd30daa3&ipo=images
        And this:
        https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FlASP1RZJpNK0W1O8tzdBfetSnIqLX6iKxE6DDUK8jqM.gif%3Fformat%3Dpng8%26s%3D13a235377c330eb0ba9a6ddf73a9c50a8124ae4a&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=bea703087f23c4235f6473e9c412cf348fbad785c4542da98a773dbffcec3832&ipo=images

        Like

      2. anounceofsaltperday Post author

        I think they are correct… and they don’t look strange to me. The projection of the area of light on the surface of the middle kingdom has several inputs including the position of the sun, the manner in which the radiation is shaded (as in a lamp shade), the shape of the firmament, the reflective nature of the surface of the firmament and the vector and strength of the electromagnetic field between the sun and the earth. All of these aspects and probably others, will contribute to shape of the area which is illuminated at any one instant. Of more interest to me is the obvious demonstration that the ball model is PROVEN incorrect by the line of the suns illumination. Time zones follow lines of longitude. Between the vernal equinox and during normal summer this makes sense on the globe. But in northern winter, the lines of longitude are at 26o out of whack in the opposite direction…. and yet time zones continue to follow lines of longitude. Go figure!

        Like

  7. NiciesMan

    One other question:
    if the Moon is an object above a flat plane, why do you suppose one has never seen anything but the one face of the moon (as is the case with perspective)?
    Thanks

    Like

    Reply
      1. NiciesMan

        I would think.
        ‘Object’ means a physical thing.
        I know it is a light source.
        I have an inclination to believe it has no solid component actually, but I’m not sure (so, to answer your question, no, I shouldn’t call it an object).
        But whether it’s tangible or intangible, it is obviously some sort of light source which, despite different viewing perspectives, has only been seen on its one face.
        But if you’re not directly underneath something, wouldn’t you see its side (or at least light emitted from another side)?

        Like

      2. anounceofsaltperday Post author

        The moon ‘rotates” only in its perimeter. Clearly this implies that, if it were a globe, it would be rotating along an axis which is along the line drawn between the centre of the earth globe and the centre of the moon globe. Since the moon is supposedly travelling around a globe, this would mean that this axis of rotation would be constantly changing direction without causing any precession or wobbling. This is in direct defiance of the known behaviour of rotating objects but especially gyroscopes which are used in aircraft navigation because they are KNOWN to maintain an unchanging direction of axial rotation once set in motion. From this analysis, I think we can conclude that the moon is not a free body and is probably a projection.

        Like

  8. NiciesMan

    I just watched a video about the great pyramids in Egypt.
    They were supposedly created with — the way I interpret it — a million times more advancement than current civilization.
    It is completely inexplicable that any person, like we know people to be now, could have built the pyramids.
    Man must have had incredible levels of potential back then (part of why the Bible records man living to hundreds of years in the pre-Flood days, and that was presumably before the pyramids were built).
    Do you, in your model of history, have any idea as to the state of man in the ancient days, and why he is so lowly compared to his ancestors?

    Another question:
    What is your opinion on the chronology of the Earth?
    On the Israelite calendar it is (from the creation of Adam and Chava) 5783.
    Thanks

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      Somewhere amongst the many videos I have watched an idea was put forward that, just before the flood, the world was well populated with giants, fallen angels, hybrid beasts and monsters of all sorts and corrupted men and women. Billions of intelligent creatures was the claim. The Moslem view is that Adam was 16′ tall. These views are all consistent with the bible and non canonical texts such as Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and so on. The flood took place in 1656 on the Hebrew calendar, so that is plenty of time for a huge population to exist. Given the idea that the arts of creating metals, warfare etc etc were taught to men and women by Azaziel and his companions, there is little reason to think that the technology prior to the flood was primitive. Another story is that there is evidence of flooding erosion at the pyramids and the flood so i don’t think its a given that the Pyramids post date the flood. With regard to our smaller stature and intelligence than Adam, my thinking is that if we lived for 900 years and received the same environmental inputs that Adam enjoyed, then we would grow to that size. I think we live short, brutal lives because we lack knowledge.

      I think the Hebrew calendar is likely to be more right than wrong. We are clearly being fed a story about “the dark ages” and there are many reasons to pursue the model that a thousand years have been inserted into the timeline given to me during my education.

      A similar thang may have taken place in the Hebrew Calendar. What are your thought?

      Like

      Reply
      1. NiciesMan

        Interesting ideas.
        It would make sense if Adam was 15 or 16 feet tall.
        And there were a lot of powerful, non-human entities in those days.
        But one would think — with boiling raining water many miles high, that the structures those people built would be destroyed too.
        And the idea that anyone can be convinced that — against to all their written and oral records — 1000 extra years happened recently is not something I can give any plausibility myself.

        Like

  9. NiciesMan

    Thank you!!
    I certiainly am envious of your knowledge of hidden things.

    I wonder: giants and titans, are they also created in the divine image? That’s a rhetorical question, but maybe you do know.
    One cannot study the Bible properly if they believe they are greater than each previous generation (who were actually greater and closer to Adam and Chava).
    When will the One who oversees all decide “Enough is enough!” with all these conspiracies and lies!

    Like

    Reply
    1. anounceofsaltperday Post author

      The biblical story is the rebellious heavenly angels, led by Azaziel, came to earth at Mt Herman and took wives. These unions resulted in the birth of the Titans. These hybrid creatures then went on to corrupt all flesh and the creation. Yahavaha’s solution to this was the flood of Noah. These hybrid beings were not written into the book of life and so the spirit of the millions or billions of creatures have no place of rest. It is these spirits which we now call demons. They crave to be in control of the living and seek to infest them.

      Like

      Reply
  10. NiciesMan

    One of the videos you link to talks about Tartaria.
    What is your understanding of the Tartaria empire which was supposedly covered up?

    Like

    Reply
      1. NiciesMan

        Interesting (I didn’t look too much at it though).
        What is your view of the role of music before the last century or so (before music became what it typically is now)?
        Seeing that you know a lot of wisdom of things, what are your general thoughts on the nature of music?
        In the current culture, it has clearly been corrupted (as per one of Alice Bailey’s ten steps from her “ten point plan,” which is to corrupt art and music).

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s