![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Epicurus and his school did not believe other Greeks that the Earth was a sphere, since, being extreme empiricists, they objected to "dialectic" used to establish this fact while clearly not seeing any roundness. This view conforms to their physics where the natural movement of atoms is from up to down and the whole universe is a random assemblage of atoms caused by their "swerve." So, Epicureans were the only clearly identifiable group of educated Europeans who did not agree that the Earth was a sphere after this fact was discovered. Hopefully, someone can add a section on Epicureans to the main text with proper references. Pernambuco1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Beland: No, and I don't know where it is disputed. To confirm it, check out any of the primary sources on Epicurean physics; "De Rerum Natura" of Lucretius comes to mind.
With this edit, Nightscream adds Ibn Hazm back in, this time with his name actually mentioned in the now-grammatical edit. However, the section it is in (Islamic astronomy) describes Arabic mensuration of the earth, the spherical nature of the earth long having been long ago accepted. What is the context of Ibn Hazm's observation? Why is it any more relevant than saying the same thing today as one in a list of many evidences for the spherical earth? Since Muslim scholars already knew the earth was spherical by then, and had developed mathematical techniques around that knowledge, this mention is superfluous. I intend to remove it after a period of commentary. Also, is there something wrong with the translation or paraphrasing? Saying that “the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth” makes no sense and is not true. Strebe ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Flat Earth § Alternate or mixed theories overlaps almost entirely with Spherical Earth § History. It seems like it would be easier for readers and editors to have a single article that covers historical thinking about the shape of the Earth. I'm not sure what the best merge target would be, though, and whether the sections on Cause and Empirical confirmation and effects should go to the same place or not. I was thinking History of geodesy but editors there felt there wasn't enough overlap, since that's mostly about measurement (though it includes very early measurements). The next possibility is Figure of the Earth, but I think that may have similar problems of different focus and lack of sufficient overlap. So the best I can think of at the moment is History of the figure of the Earth but that doesn't sound all that great. Discovery of the shape of the Earth? Any thoughts? -- Beland ( talk) 03:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The set of proofs (such as tidal lock etc.) is compiled in Shperical Earth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user 6292789 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Beland: This series of edits goes further into the unfortunate territory we discuss just above in [[Talk:Spherical Earth#Merge with Flat Earth]]. This article is not a refutation of flat earth theories or even a comparison of spherical to flat earth. The evidences should be (cited) descriptions of how and why we know the earth to be spherical. Flat is not the only alternative model, so the article certainly should not be a blow-by-blow account of the strengths of spherical-versus-flat models. Ultimately, this series of edits (along with some material already there) give flat earth proponents WP:UNDUE prominence. Strebe ( talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The aforenamed section actually discusses the fact that the observable horizon drops as the observer gains altitude (at a predictable rate which is very different in the case of a sphere vs. any sort of flat surface). This is only tangentially related to stars, in the sense that one could theoretically see more stars (near the horizon) at altitude. But in practice, the drop of the horizon is so slight (about 0.5 degrees at 1,000 feet, and proportional to the square root of the observer's height), that no practical observation would reveal obviously more stars. In fact, measurements like Al Biruni's are done during the daytime, when a clear view of the horizon is possible, so that its angle can be precisely compared against true horizontal. Recommend changing the title of this section to: "Observation of the horizon at altitude".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.44.2 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if implying causality if even necessary or relevant, but irregardless it should be cited if included as its own section Genetikbliss ( talk) 22:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Section Spherical Earth#History overlaps widely with Earth's circumference#History and Meridian arc#History, not to mention History of geodesy. Can we minimize the duplications? fgnievinski ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The move from Spherical Earth#History is complete. -- Beland ( talk) 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions greek documentation as early as the 5th century BC but there is a verse in the Bible, written by King Solomon who lived near 900 years BC.
Proverbs 8:27 “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:”
I am not questioning or challenging the accuracy of the article but I thought it could be inserted in it.
Thank you. 2804:431:C7F1:8F96:18F0:28F6:B93D:C69E ( talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
“He stretches out the northern sky [literally, “the north”] over empty space [literally, “emptiness”], Suspending the earth upon nothing;”
Since the book of Job contains poetry distinctive of the Hebrew style, and the prose bears strongest resemblance to the Pentateuch, of which Moses was also the writer, I would agree with the tradition shared among both Jewish and early Christian scholars, that Moses is the writer of the book of Job, making this description of the earth pre-date the Greek’s description by about 1000 years. Note the descriptive writing, that the earth isn’t described as ‘sitting’, but rather as ‘hanging’ or ‘suspended’ on nothing. In addition, the direction of the suspension isn’t described as ‘from above’, as it might be if the belief was of the earth being a flat plate; no, but the description is of its hanging or being suspended from a direction, ‘the north’, as if speaking of a ball or sphere.
“There is One who dwells above the circle [Or, a Hebrew word that could alternately be translated as “sphere”] of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Yes, I know the so-called ‘higher critics’ like to try to post-date this book to avoid any embarrassment. But their mistaken belief that ‘miracles can’t happen because they’re miraculous’ bespeaks an arrogance that sounds just as hollow when their statement is rewritten to embrace the equally empty attitude that ‘prophecies can’t happen because that would make them prophetic’. Nevertheless, the book of Isaiah is a part of the Bible canon, and is held as authentic and accurate scientifically, archeologically, and spiritually. Let’s face it, no amount of post-dating will remove the Isaiah scroll from the 1947 find of the Dead Sea scrolls, which contain the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in the greatest of detail. And since the God of Truth, who hates lying and deception, would be loath to use the writings of a charlatan to dispatch true and faithful prophecies, then I would presume to say that if the Messianic prophecies which Isaiah wrote in the Dead Sea scrolls at least 100 years before Christ walked the earth, faithfully came true in every detail, then the previous prophecies that Isaiah also wrote, about the fall of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, about king Cyrus’ capture of Babylon, and about Babylon’s ultimate destruction to become a ‘heap of ruins’ down to this very day - yes, all of these prophecies also faithfully came true! Which would make the writing of Isaiah 40:22 predate the Greek scientists/ philosophers by about 250 to 300 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to add to the conversation. <references include: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, copy-write 2013, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania; and ‘All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial’, copy-write 1990, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 95-96 and 118-119.{{unsigned|50.39.204.182}}
Please return the "empirical" section.
It was rather... exquicite to learn, how roundness of Earth could be told in 1492-1493 before Columbus' discovery and Drake's around-the-world travel. 2A00:1FA0:45B:B66D:0:44:908C:3B01 ( talk) 21:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
In lieu of flat earth trolling I would recommend to make own section "Empirical evidence contradicting with flat earth theory" in "Flat Earth" section. However, all the empirical evidence was moved to a ridiculously niche article specifically for a tiny minority of people specializing on debunking; which actually makes it HARDER to counter flatearthers. 109.252.65.139 ( talk) 07:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Please add this. Thank you. (Excerpt taken from Timeline of Solar System astronomy; it can be re-worded as needed.)
37.134.90.176 ( talk) 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The page preview of the term 'Earth's circumference' contains an error: it states the circumference of Earth is 400,075.017km, that should be 40,075.017km. (The miles should be fixed accordingly.) PManuel72 ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Epicurus and his school did not believe other Greeks that the Earth was a sphere, since, being extreme empiricists, they objected to "dialectic" used to establish this fact while clearly not seeing any roundness. This view conforms to their physics where the natural movement of atoms is from up to down and the whole universe is a random assemblage of atoms caused by their "swerve." So, Epicureans were the only clearly identifiable group of educated Europeans who did not agree that the Earth was a sphere after this fact was discovered. Hopefully, someone can add a section on Epicureans to the main text with proper references. Pernambuco1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Beland: No, and I don't know where it is disputed. To confirm it, check out any of the primary sources on Epicurean physics; "De Rerum Natura" of Lucretius comes to mind.
With this edit, Nightscream adds Ibn Hazm back in, this time with his name actually mentioned in the now-grammatical edit. However, the section it is in (Islamic astronomy) describes Arabic mensuration of the earth, the spherical nature of the earth long having been long ago accepted. What is the context of Ibn Hazm's observation? Why is it any more relevant than saying the same thing today as one in a list of many evidences for the spherical earth? Since Muslim scholars already knew the earth was spherical by then, and had developed mathematical techniques around that knowledge, this mention is superfluous. I intend to remove it after a period of commentary. Also, is there something wrong with the translation or paraphrasing? Saying that “the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth” makes no sense and is not true. Strebe ( talk) 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Flat Earth § Alternate or mixed theories overlaps almost entirely with Spherical Earth § History. It seems like it would be easier for readers and editors to have a single article that covers historical thinking about the shape of the Earth. I'm not sure what the best merge target would be, though, and whether the sections on Cause and Empirical confirmation and effects should go to the same place or not. I was thinking History of geodesy but editors there felt there wasn't enough overlap, since that's mostly about measurement (though it includes very early measurements). The next possibility is Figure of the Earth, but I think that may have similar problems of different focus and lack of sufficient overlap. So the best I can think of at the moment is History of the figure of the Earth but that doesn't sound all that great. Discovery of the shape of the Earth? Any thoughts? -- Beland ( talk) 03:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The set of proofs (such as tidal lock etc.) is compiled in Shperical Earth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user 6292789 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Beland: This series of edits goes further into the unfortunate territory we discuss just above in [[Talk:Spherical Earth#Merge with Flat Earth]]. This article is not a refutation of flat earth theories or even a comparison of spherical to flat earth. The evidences should be (cited) descriptions of how and why we know the earth to be spherical. Flat is not the only alternative model, so the article certainly should not be a blow-by-blow account of the strengths of spherical-versus-flat models. Ultimately, this series of edits (along with some material already there) give flat earth proponents WP:UNDUE prominence. Strebe ( talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The aforenamed section actually discusses the fact that the observable horizon drops as the observer gains altitude (at a predictable rate which is very different in the case of a sphere vs. any sort of flat surface). This is only tangentially related to stars, in the sense that one could theoretically see more stars (near the horizon) at altitude. But in practice, the drop of the horizon is so slight (about 0.5 degrees at 1,000 feet, and proportional to the square root of the observer's height), that no practical observation would reveal obviously more stars. In fact, measurements like Al Biruni's are done during the daytime, when a clear view of the horizon is possible, so that its angle can be precisely compared against true horizontal. Recommend changing the title of this section to: "Observation of the horizon at altitude".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.44.2 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if implying causality if even necessary or relevant, but irregardless it should be cited if included as its own section Genetikbliss ( talk) 22:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Section Spherical Earth#History overlaps widely with Earth's circumference#History and Meridian arc#History, not to mention History of geodesy. Can we minimize the duplications? fgnievinski ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The move from Spherical Earth#History is complete. -- Beland ( talk) 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions greek documentation as early as the 5th century BC but there is a verse in the Bible, written by King Solomon who lived near 900 years BC.
Proverbs 8:27 “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:”
I am not questioning or challenging the accuracy of the article but I thought it could be inserted in it.
Thank you. 2804:431:C7F1:8F96:18F0:28F6:B93D:C69E ( talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
“He stretches out the northern sky [literally, “the north”] over empty space [literally, “emptiness”], Suspending the earth upon nothing;”
Since the book of Job contains poetry distinctive of the Hebrew style, and the prose bears strongest resemblance to the Pentateuch, of which Moses was also the writer, I would agree with the tradition shared among both Jewish and early Christian scholars, that Moses is the writer of the book of Job, making this description of the earth pre-date the Greek’s description by about 1000 years. Note the descriptive writing, that the earth isn’t described as ‘sitting’, but rather as ‘hanging’ or ‘suspended’ on nothing. In addition, the direction of the suspension isn’t described as ‘from above’, as it might be if the belief was of the earth being a flat plate; no, but the description is of its hanging or being suspended from a direction, ‘the north’, as if speaking of a ball or sphere.
“There is One who dwells above the circle [Or, a Hebrew word that could alternately be translated as “sphere”] of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Yes, I know the so-called ‘higher critics’ like to try to post-date this book to avoid any embarrassment. But their mistaken belief that ‘miracles can’t happen because they’re miraculous’ bespeaks an arrogance that sounds just as hollow when their statement is rewritten to embrace the equally empty attitude that ‘prophecies can’t happen because that would make them prophetic’. Nevertheless, the book of Isaiah is a part of the Bible canon, and is held as authentic and accurate scientifically, archeologically, and spiritually. Let’s face it, no amount of post-dating will remove the Isaiah scroll from the 1947 find of the Dead Sea scrolls, which contain the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in the greatest of detail. And since the God of Truth, who hates lying and deception, would be loath to use the writings of a charlatan to dispatch true and faithful prophecies, then I would presume to say that if the Messianic prophecies which Isaiah wrote in the Dead Sea scrolls at least 100 years before Christ walked the earth, faithfully came true in every detail, then the previous prophecies that Isaiah also wrote, about the fall of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, about king Cyrus’ capture of Babylon, and about Babylon’s ultimate destruction to become a ‘heap of ruins’ down to this very day - yes, all of these prophecies also faithfully came true! Which would make the writing of Isaiah 40:22 predate the Greek scientists/ philosophers by about 250 to 300 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to add to the conversation. <references include: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, copy-write 2013, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania; and ‘All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial’, copy-write 1990, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 95-96 and 118-119.{{unsigned|50.39.204.182}}
Please return the "empirical" section.
It was rather... exquicite to learn, how roundness of Earth could be told in 1492-1493 before Columbus' discovery and Drake's around-the-world travel. 2A00:1FA0:45B:B66D:0:44:908C:3B01 ( talk) 21:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
In lieu of flat earth trolling I would recommend to make own section "Empirical evidence contradicting with flat earth theory" in "Flat Earth" section. However, all the empirical evidence was moved to a ridiculously niche article specifically for a tiny minority of people specializing on debunking; which actually makes it HARDER to counter flatearthers. 109.252.65.139 ( talk) 07:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Please add this. Thank you. (Excerpt taken from Timeline of Solar System astronomy; it can be re-worded as needed.)
37.134.90.176 ( talk) 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The page preview of the term 'Earth's circumference' contains an error: it states the circumference of Earth is 400,075.017km, that should be 40,075.017km. (The miles should be fixed accordingly.) PManuel72 ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)