Traveler

Nothing, beyond the friction of the hubs on the wheels.  You would have to make assumptions not presented to assume the plane would not fly, ie:  hubs generate enough friction to retard forward movement or engines aren't powerful enough to overcome the minor increase in friction generated through increased wheel speed.  The scenario assumes and takes strides to convey, that unnatural impediments at the wheels don't exist.

The problem with the scenario given is that it is confusing two disconnected conditions and assuming that they are connected – a problem with many superficial logical challenges or arguments.  The engines work to create forward movement by moving the air.  Thus, one platform is the air in which the plane exists.  The other platform is the ground, which is the conveyor and wheels.  The conveyor is trying to keep the plane stationary relative to the ground by moving the conveyor backwards.  But the plane engines and propellers are trying to move the plane – not on the ground but through the platform in which the air is initially stationary to the ground.
The only convergence between the two platforms is the wheels connecting the plane to the conveyor and the only thing to keep the plane from moving forward is the friction in the wheels – but that was not given as a component of the problem.  If the wheels are allowed to move freely over the conveyor without accounting for friction then the only force acting on the plain is the engines and propellers moving the plain through the air.  The motion of the conveyor become irrelevant and the assumption that the conveyor would or could counter the speed of the plain is a false or bad assumption.  Because the air will not remain stationary in relation to the plane and ground.  Once the propellers create enough air movement over the wings the plain will leave the ground (conveyor) – which according to the statement of the problem is not actually a factor of force anyway. 
I believe the answer is that the problem is unsolvable in that any possible solution (the plane flying or not) will contradict at least one of the conflicting assumptions. 
 
The Traveler

More complication - I posted in another thread and I posted with an error - the variant reading is “When” not “Before” G-d first established his covenant with man.   I am of the opinion that when we think of the creation from what we learn in scripture we think of the origins of our universe and cosmos.   This is not what I believe is the beginning of revelation as we have recorded scripture.  I believe what is really going on is a tutorial of covenants established through the plan of salvation – before the foundations of the earth (this world) were laid.
When we enter the temple (holy house of G-d) to become endowed with divine covenant which is our heritage from before the earth was made; we begin with instruction of how our covenant began or came about.  The beginning of our covenant is what we call the “creation”.   If we understand the purpose and structure of a Chiasm we see that the “beginning” or first step (blessing) of the covenant is the creation of light.  I suggest this is not reference to electrical magnetic radiation.  Then, according to covenant G-d begins a process of “separating” the light from the darkness – all of which ends in what the scriptures call the final judgment which is the end of the Chiasm.  At the center of the Chiasm that describes the Plan of Salvation is Christ and the atonement.  I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to fill in the rest of the Plan of Salvation Chiasm.
 
The Traveler

First, note that in this scene, we have Peter, Thomas Didymus, Nathanael, James, John, and two others (7 total).
In verse 19, we're talking about Peter's death.  Then Peter asks about John's death.  Now why would Peter ask about John's death unless he had some reason to believe that something unusual was happening to John?  Maybe he just wanted to be comforted a little - "well, if I have to die so terribly, can John die with me?" (not!)  Why not ask about all of the others, or a different other?  Why was John singled out?  Because John was an exception and they already knew it - even if they didn't fully understand it.
So then Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"  Short and sweet - no explanation.  They already know what he's talking about.  Well, what's "till I come"?  He's already there.  He's already been resurrected.  Those who believe in the Second Coming understand this to reference that event.  So, the Lord says (in answer to a question about John's death!) John is going to "tarry" until the Second Coming.  Well, either the second coming is happening in the next 60 years or so, or something unusual is happening to John.
From what the apostles knew, they think ("this saying went out among the brethren") that John will not die.  Why do they think that?  Because they interpret Christ's words (referring to something they already knew about) as saying that John will tarry until the Second Coming.  How can he do that?  Well, whatever else is true, he can't die when normal men die because the Second Coming isn't that close - while some followers may have thought it would be any next second, the leadership clearly knew (the writings of Paul make it clear they knew) that it was quite distant.  Thus, they assumed John would not die, since that's the only way they can imagine him sticking around that long.  Presumably they didn't think to ask how, they just assumed he wouldn't die.
Meanwhile, when John (who knows what's going to happen to him) corrects them, he doesn't say he's not going to tarry, or that "till I come" isn't in reference to the Second Coming, he says only that Jesus never said John wouldn't die.  That's the only correction.  Thus, the tarrying to the Second Coming was never countered.
So how is it that John can remain until the Second Coming and yet still die?  Simple, he will die at the Second Coming and be resurrected, in an instant - he will not be buried, will not "sleep" - just like the righteous still alive at the Second Coming:
John corrected the error about him not dying because all must die, in consequence of the fall of Adam (see various statements by Paul about death and the resurrection), but never corrected the statement that he would tarry until the Second Coming - because that didn't need correcting.
Further evidence:
Christ is again talking about the Second Coming.  Based on earlier verses in this sequence, we have reason to believe that these are the apostles and perhaps a few others, but not a multitude.  It's a veiled reference to John (and for all we know, others, though latter-day revelation tells us no others from the original 12).

As I have studied and pondered - both from my background as a physicist and a theologian I am convinced that only two possibilities emerge as “kingdoms” where G-d resides as the supreme Suzerain.  One being claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the other claim is that of the early Christians which is currently split into the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. 
The prophet Daniel prophesied that the last great “Kingdom” of man would be a kingdom of iron beginning at the waist of the image of a man.  Most Judo-Christian theologians I have studied believe this kingdom of iron to be the Roman empire.   This empire is first divided into two kingdoms which are represented by the legs of the image.  Then Daniel prophesied that this kingdom would become weak (mixed with clay) and become 10 kingdoms.  When the Roman empire would become 10 lessor kingdoms – Daniel prophesied that the “Kingdom” of G-d would be “cut out of a mountain” beginning as a small stone that would roll fourth – and when this occurred the ten kingdoms would fall and never be re-established.
If Daniel was a prophet to be believed that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox obviously do not fulfill his prophesy.  Was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established – was it like a small stone cut from a mountain?  Has it rolled forth with the possibility of covering the earth for when Christ returns?    I happen to believe so.
Now – your concern that there are many G-ds?  In ancient “kingdoms” of the Middle Near East – there were “Vassals” appointed by the Suzerain to assist in “governing” the kingdom.  These vassals were appointed by a class of citizens called the “first born”.  These governing Vassals were judges given the title of g-d.  It was the custom of such a Vassal to speak by the authority of the Suzerain in the first person (which in Egypt was the title of Pharaoh).  This causes many modern researchers to think that such a Vassal was actually the supreme Suzerain.  Note that they would even speak in the first person saying they were the Suzerain but in reality, they were appointed vassals.
These vassals were “one” with the Suzerain and by right of heritage were considered heirs of the thrown of the Suzerain.   Are we not told in scripture that true believers in Christ and true citizens of the True Kingdom of G-d - are joint heirs to the very divine thrown of G-d?  And as Jesus prayed in John 17 – are one with G-d as he (Jesus) is with G-d the Father.
I do not know of any other Church on earth that teaches such things as was taught by Christ – and yet teaches it in such a manner that we can understand in our modern cultures and democratic forms of governments.
 
The Traveler

Blossom76,
I've been studying feverishly for almost a week on this and talking to other members/Bishop/Stake President.  As an investigator myself, take what I say with a grain of salt.  However, this is where I am in my study:
1.  I believe Mormon Culture and Doctrine are two different things and don't always compliment each other.  Mormon's typically don't talk about many things in front of investigators because they recognize this (or at least that it sounds insane to people unknowing and/or without the Holy Spirit to guide them). IE: Spirit Prison
2.  Mormons (culturally and doctrinally) use the word "god" sometimes carries the same meaning as we understand it and sometimes doesn't.  This is all founded on doctrine, but like all doctrine, it is written and interpreted by man, who is imperfect.  To believe, as I do, that God is more exalted that Jesus and Jesus is more exalted than us is a belief some may challenge, but that doesn't mean they are right.
3. As someone above stated, there are passages in the Bible to support most of the "whacky" ideas discussed in this thread.  These are often clarified in the Book of Mormon or D&C which is why those are often cited in support.  It is ALWAYS beneficial to use the footnotes to follow back, then search LDS.org for essays on the subject.
4. ALWAYS keep in mind what I said earlier.  Man is imperfect.  One thing the President told me last night that stuck with me later (I wish it had at the time and I might have remembered it verbatim) "People, our spirit, and the Gospel are pure and great, but held in an earthen vessel".  Even when the Holy Spirit speaks to us, earthly ears must interpret it.
5.  Probably the most important thing one of the missionaries said to me was that I won't always understand things that some lifetime members don't understand.  We can pray for understanding, but more often it is better to pray for peace on the topic.  I've done this, and thankfully that prayer was answered.  My personal beliefs are still at odds with some things that I've learned, but I think I'm OK with that at this point.

More complication - I posted in another thread and I posted with an error - the variant reading is “When” not “Before” G-d first established his covenant with man.   I am of the opinion that when we think of the creation from what we learn in scripture we think of the origins of our universe and cosmos.   This is not what I believe is the beginning of revelation as we have recorded scripture.  I believe what is really going on is a tutorial of covenants established through the plan of salvation – before the foundations of the earth (this world) were laid.
When we enter the temple (holy house of G-d) to become endowed with divine covenant which is our heritage from before the earth was made; we begin with instruction of how our covenant began or came about.  The beginning of our covenant is what we call the “creation”.   If we understand the purpose and structure of a Chiasm we see that the “beginning” or first step (blessing) of the covenant is the creation of light.  I suggest this is not reference to electrical magnetic radiation.  Then, according to covenant G-d begins a process of “separating” the light from the darkness – all of which ends in what the scriptures call the final judgment which is the end of the Chiasm.  At the center of the Chiasm that describes the Plan of Salvation is Christ and the atonement.  I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to fill in the rest of the Plan of Salvation Chiasm.
 
The Traveler

Obviously, you do not understand that the only “true” Church is the true Kingdom of G-d – the realm over which G-d (not men of high standing) governs as king.  If there is one true G-d there is only one true kingdom over which he is the rightful king.  The ancient Pharisees thought they were citizens of the kingdom of G-d and thought they could prove it through their scriptures – but they were instrumental in crucifying the rightful king - proving that not all religions speak for G-g even if they think they can prove that sometime in the past there was a Church (Kingdom) of G-d to which their “fathers” belonged.
The issue is not the traditions of men but seeking truth – which includes the turth of the True and Living Church which is the True and Living Kingdom of the True and Living G-d.
 
The Traveler

@zlarry123
Allow me to introduce myself.  I am a scientist and engineer.  I am semi-retired and have a consulting business I run from my home in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I am also a High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  When I first went to work following my formal education; I worked as a civilian contract consultant for the Defense department.  I study archaeology (ancient societies) as a hobby (amateur) and was a friend of the late Dr. Norton and his wife.  Dr. Norton was the former head of archaeology at Harvard and was not LDS.
I would agree with you that the Traditional Christian theology is incapable of dealing with concepts like “before” time and this incapability (along with a great many others) has created a major division between the scientific community and fundamental Traditional Christian communities.
I would suggest to you that G-d has brought about a “restoration” of truth in these last days that has brought about great changes in human understanding in both scientific and religious thought that so pervaded western civilization since the destruction or apostasy of Christianity and empirical (science) knowledge of G-d’s creations during the Dark Ages.  I would be glad to discuss with you how G-d plans (according to prophesy) to restore or gather his covenant (or born again – meaning the beginning of covenant) children of G-d in the last days and that his “gathered” people will be “one”.   We LDS understand this to be the restoration of the Jews in Jerusalem and the establishment of Zion for those of the house of Israel that were scattered among the “gentiles”.
But I would warn you – you may encounter non-Traditional Christian ideas that were lost to humanity with the death of the Apostles and the end of divine enlightenment with authority to speak truth and the divine things of G-s as worthy as the ancients that once spoke with authority but exists today as a scripture remnant.
But I would speak one thought now.  The phrase “In the beginning” has a variant reading (hopefully you know and understand what is meant by a variant reading of ancient scripture) that is “Before G-d first established his covenant with mankind”.  This would suggest that the “beginning” spoken of in Genesis was not the beginning of time but rather the beginning of covenants within an existing society.  If this notion is interesting to you then perhaps we have more we can discuss.
 
The Traveler

One of the big problems we have in understanding scripture is trying to translate from ancient languages and then trying to interpret what we think we have learned.  I do not want to get into a contest of textual criticism – not because I am not willing to discuss such things but it would seem we have experts that, from their comments, appear to be more ignorant than knowledgeable.
The idea of “one” G-d comes to us from ancient Hebrew.  It is interesting that there are two ancient Hebrew words that are both translated into the modern English word “one”.  The two ancient Hebrew words are “ehad” and “yeheed” (please pardon my spelling).  The word “yeheed” is the singular term and is always used to specify the singularity of something.  So if you were to say, “I have one friend” in ancient Hebrew you would use the term “yeheed”.  The ancient Hebrew term “ehad” is the plural use and meaning of the word one.  For example, in scripture, when it says a man and a woman are one flesh – the word “ehad” is used.  This means the uniting of many (plural) in a single cause.
All references in scripture that say “one G-d” use the ancient Hebrew word “ehad”.  There is not a single exception. 
If we want to talk of G-d being the “King” of the kingdom of heaven – those that tout the Trinity have even greater problems – especially with Jesus indicating that he is “one” with the Father and that those that believe in him (Christ) are also one as he and the Father are one – meaning “ehad”.  But in ancient Kingdoms there was a supreme Suzerain (King) that would appoint governors that were also called “king”.  In such case it would be said by any king of the kingdom (including the Suzerain) “I am the supreme ruler and beside me there is no other ruler – or as some like to quote in scripture thinking they know more than they do – “I am G-d and beside me there is no other g-d”.  One example of many misunderstanding this principle is at the trial of Christ when the Jews said, “We have no king but Cezar -  Hmmmmm who then was Herod? 
 
The Traveler

Again, to over complicate things - It is my impression that the Old Testament is the most misunderstood of all scripture.  I do not believe that the Old Testament is a historically accurate record of Israel but rather a type and shadow of the covenants established in the pre-existence, the war in heaven – the fall and mortal experience of man and the restoration of blessings (eternal life).  In short it is not a historical account of Israel but rather a type and shadow of the plan of salvation.
Likewise, the Book of Mormon is not a historical document of the Nephits and Laminites but rather a type and shadow of the fullness of the gospel of Christ.
 
The Traveler

If I had the option - I would rather sacrifice my own life rather than to take another.  If I have no other option I will defend the innocent and some principles to the death.
The Traveler

John 17  - We human believers are "one" (ehad) with the Father is the same manner and way that Jesus is "one" (ehad) with the Father.
Obviously #2 makes sense to me and is consistant with the ancients that knew enough about G-d to be able to write scripture.
 
The Traveler

Wait, is that one example, or one example?

I understand that some LDS scholars (professor-types, that is) have suggested that the term "henotheism" may be appropriate, since there is the worship of only one God, but the belief that many deities may exist, and that there is great potential for more to attain that level of exaltation. Yes?  No?  Maybe?

My guess: This is a translation of a piece of poetry, an extremely common way of writing in ancient times. I would not be surprised if the entire book of Abraham -- and of Moses, for that matter -- were originally poetic works. For example, almost all Greek texts from archaic times are poetic; "prose" as a style is almost unknown in Greek until the classical period.
I think you are misinterpreting this. Kolob's "revolution" might well refer to its orbit around another, much larger (or not) star, or (if it's near the center of a galaxy) its rotation around the galactic core, or whatever else.
In any case, please note that all of the Abrahamic descriptions of astronomical ideas appear to be based on Egyptian astronomy, which is in some ways unlike our modern ideas of astronomy. Applying modern ideas into ancient models usually results in confusion and frustration.
I personally believe that Kolob is absolutely, undoubtedly a real, honest-to-goodness star.
A star rotates at the speed it does based on the rotational momentum of the gas cloud that formed the star around its center of gravity, plus the rotational momenta of any large objects that fall into it. It is no mere coincidence that the ecliptic (plane on which a planet orbits the sun) is almost the same for all the planets in our solar system; or that the sun's plane of rotation is pretty much identical to the ecliptic; or that all the planets orbit the sun in the same direction, which is the direction of the sun's rotation. This is the natural result of the condensation of a massive gas cloud made up of the primordial elements of creation mixed in with the detritus of a couple of generations of exploding stars into a star and planetary system.
Perhaps counterintuitively, the larger a star is, the shorter its life. I understand that some supermassive stars have a lifetime of only several million years, perhaps less. What does this mean in relation to Kolob? Nothing at all. While I fully believe that Kolob is an actual, literal star, I don't know anything else about it that would be relevant in a scientific discussion.
There are some people who believe that "Kolob" is nothing more than a representation of Christ. I disagree with the "nothing more" part, but I absolutely agree that Kolob is used as a literary device to represent Jesus Christ. Kolob is basically mentioned only in Abraham 3 (and a couple of references in the papyri Facsimiles), and its mention there is clearly as a metaphor or representation of Christ. I think that's really where the relevance of Kolob lies. There are all sorts of mechanistic things about how God creates and orders the universe that will doubtless require many, many lifetimes worth of time to understand. I see no reason why God would reveal one out-of-context piece of that to us unless it were meant to be something important and relevant -- that is, unless it helps us to understand Christ, his place in our salvation, and how we must approach him.
Again, my own opinion is that trying to understand Kolob in light of 21st-century astrophysics is an exercise in futility. Even if it's a real star, as I believe it is, that's not why we're told about it. We might as well try to use the Biblical account to define the exact properties and alcohol content of the wine that Jesus made from water.

I believe you are getting the best of all possible worlds.  Learning, understanding and knowledge never hurt anyone – even if you are learning, understanding and gaining knowledge of your worse enemies – It is always a good idea to learn as much as possible about people you interface with.
I am also of the belief, that in most situations, especially in important relationships (like marriage) it is better to find ways to work together than it is to be right as an individual.   As a side note – I am a scientist and engineer currently working in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I am quite sure that if it was not for the LDS theology – I would be an atheists or agnostic as far as any other structured religion I have encountered.  For example, (marriage) I do not see any logic in divine covenants that do not have eternal significances and purpose.
 
The Traveler

That's a fascinating thing to bring up.  Something related but not exactly the same is regarding dates.  In the West, many time the fruit of good and evil is portrayed as an apple.  However, among some in the Mediterranean and Middle East (and East of there) the fruit is considered to perhaps be the Date (though some think of it as the fig I've heard as well).

Have you seen this https://www.mormon.org/christmas/25-ways-25-days/day-1
I thought it was very impressive! Very well done!

I'm so happy right now!
As some of you know my husband is very Catholic and I'm investigating the LDS church, I love the Book Of Mormon and I'm praying to know if its true (nothing yet but I'll keep praying!) but my husband was umm lets just say 'less than impressed' with the whole idea.
Anyway, we have come to a compromise.  If I study the LDS faith for 18 months in depth and still want to join he will be supportive of me and even come to my baptism!  The only condition is that I have to study the Catholic faith at the same time (his point is you can't leave your own church for another if you don't even have a proper grounding in your own faith.  He also thinks I should have a proper understanding of the LDS faith before converting).  
He doesn't mind me attending LDS church as long as I go to Mass with him first (which is fine because the Mass is in the morning and the ward for my area is in the afternoon).  I do try to go to LDS church every week but honestly I need to be more dedicated (4 hours of church a week is a long time!)  
He has also agreed to study the LDS church with me (he will also help me study the Catholic church as well) and read the Book Of Mormon.
God certainly does work in your life if you pray and keep faith.  This is definitely progress people!

I little over a year ago I was diagnosed with a macular hole (eye - if anyone is wondering).  This is likely a genetic defect that manifests itself with aging.  I have a grandparent that went blind – likely this was the cause and 4 siblings with similar problems.  As a follow-on, after all the surgery for the macular hole I have developed a cataract and will require additional eye surgery.  With the upcoming surgery, I have been reviewing the copayments that have become what I consider excessive so I have been doing some complaining and demanding information.  
I was contacted today and informed that I can proceed with the same doctor I was seeing and instead of charging the procedure to my insurance I could opt to pay for everything myself out of pocket.  This did not seem like much of an option until I discovered that the total cost to me would be less than my copay charging the procedure to insurance.  I am so glad that the government has become involved with health insurance. (please understand the last statement is sarcasm)
 
The Traveler

I little over a year ago I was diagnosed with a macular hole (eye - if anyone is wondering).  This is likely a genetic defect that manifests itself with aging.  I have a grandparent that went blind – likely this was the cause and 4 siblings with similar problems.  As a follow-on, after all the surgery for the macular hole I have developed a cataract and will require additional eye surgery.  With the upcoming surgery, I have been reviewing the copayments that have become what I consider excessive so I have been doing some complaining and demanding information.  
I was contacted today and informed that I can proceed with the same doctor I was seeing and instead of charging the procedure to my insurance I could opt to pay for everything myself out of pocket.  This did not seem like much of an option until I discovered that the total cost to me would be less than my copay charging the procedure to insurance.  I am so glad that the government has become involved with health insurance. (please understand the last statement is sarcasm)
 
The Traveler

I'm beginning to think that this "you're condescending", "no, you're intellectually lazy" back and forth may well prove to Rob Osborn that infinity is real after all.

In ancient Israel, there were many festivals critical to worship.  The made-up term in English (Passover) which falls at the same time as the made-up term of “Easter” was directly tied to the calendar used in Israel.  Ancient calendars were lunar, solar or a combination of both.   Part of the ancient concept of religious worship included the calendar that designated sacred times for sacred events.  This concept is still imbedded in religious worship with the placement of Sabbath worship (once in 7 days) that defines even our modern week.  The calendar was considered sacred and prophetic.  We see this reflected in many prophesies concerning the birth of Christ – his death and other very important things. 
We should know and understand the importance of Passover as prophetic of something to come.  Likewise, we should understand that the coming of Christ both with his birth and second coming are planned, designed, well thought out and set by the laws of G-d to occur.  The symbolism around the second coming is not as ambiguous as many make it out to be.  Is there any doubt that verse 29 of Mathew 24 refers to a solar eclipse followed by a lunar eclipse?  I would also point out that it was believed anciently that the moon turned to blood following a third succession of a lunar eclipse.
Anciently the signs of heaven were considered critical to worship.  Verse 30 talks about the sign of the son of man.  I am of the notion that few have any idea what the sign of the son of man is – so if someone does not know the sign of the son of man -  how can they look for it or recognize it when it occurs?
But there is another important notion.  The ancient calendar had to begin at a prophetic day.  It was believed that the new year would begin on the first day of the week (Sunday) following the first new moon that followed the vernal equinox.  According to ancient traditions two expert witnesses must appear before a “judge” in Israel and testify that the signs for the new year have been given from heaven before the new year could begin.  Because the signs must be given from heaven there was a common saying that no man knows when the new year will begin.   But from time to time – storm clouds would gather blocking the view of the heavens and obscuring the vernal equinox and the new moon.  Under such conditions it was common to say, “No man knows the hour or the day – not even the angles of heaven”.
I find this symbolism of storm clouds obscuring signs when something sacred is to happen very intriguing.  Anciently anyone that was well aware of the sequences of the sun and the moon would be very aware when the time came close and would not need the declaration of the witnesses or the judge – they could figure this all out on their own – even on stormy cloudy days
But there is another interesting modern twist to verse 36.  There are time zones that reflect all 24 hours of a day.  Thus, we have divided up the entire world such that there is no specific hour that is unique to the planet – only just a very small area of the globe.  The hour in New York is never the same at any given moment as the hour in London, Salt Lake City, Hong Kong or Jerusalem.  In addition, we have created what we call an international date line such that the day on one side is always a different day from the day on the other side of the line.  This means that regardless of what day is designated for the second coming – it will be a different day somewhere on this earth – so if an hour and day was given it could not be universal but specific only to 1/24th of the planet. 
I believe there are people alive today that know the day and week when the second coming will be.  However, I am not one of them – yet.  I am confident that I will have a very good idea as the time approaches.  And I have determined that I am not going to dispute this matter – not with infidels and certainly with my fellow Saints.  For those that feel a sense of urgency – I am with you.  Those that do not care or are unconcerned – Wow!  I have nothing for you.
 
The Traveler

Okay – I will admit to setting a trap for Rob.  I thought he would find a proof on the internet proving Zero as a real number with finite value (thought infinitesimally small but having finite value and thus being what he calls a finite number) and post a link.  All proofs – at least that I am aware of that attempt this; uses the concept of continuity (real number continuous as a function at “0”) which make use of (or define – assume) infinity as a number to employ infinitesimally small numbers (real and with finite value) as we approach “0”.  I have posted about theoretical inconsistencies that have brought about the evolution of number theory because the idea that infinity is a number evolved before the evolution of the number “0”.
This is all very convoluted for someone that does not believe that infinity is a number – because, for example, if we have a defined bounded set of any real numbers that include “0” and divide any of the numbers in the set with the number “0” then we have proof (according to the theory of Algebra) that infinity is a number. 
I have thought of creating a blog about the convergence of number theory with theology and comparing ancient Egyptian number theory with their religious concept of Eternity.  I thought this might be interesting because Joseph Smith used the ancient Egyptian number for infinity (a word I would have typed here but my spelling is so poor I cannot find it in a scripture search) which also is the same term for eternal rather than the modern use of “eternal” from our English language – and then bring in some other interesting concepts concerning ancient titles used by Christ.  But I do not know if this site has a place for a blog???  Is there a place on this forum for a blog?
Thanks
 
The Traveler