|WikiProject Maps||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject History of Science||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Note
- 2 Recommend to strike ENTIRE article as speculative!
- 3 Hebrew Old Testament As Earliest Known Written Recording of Round Earth
- 4 Ellipsoid?
- 5 Version of English
- 6 Epicureans
- 7 Possible vandalism
- 8 Ibn Hazm
- 9 Relevance?
- 10 Archimedes' On Floating Bodies doesn't really have anything to do with the round earth
quick note: "Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel." --I do not see a specific citation or know of one, but barring that, Eratosthenes could also have assumed the sun was so large in comparison to the earth that the rays were parallel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Eratosthenes could also have assumed the sun was so large in comparison to the earth that the rays were parallel"
Recommend to strike ENTIRE article as speculative!
1st) There are no untampered PHOTOGRAPHS of the spherical earth in existence anywhere. NASA admits all PHOTOGRAPHS of the earth from outer space are photo-shopped or composite images or an artist's conception.
2nd) It is IMPOSSIBLE to circumnavigate the earth through the poles.
3rd) There are no untampered PHOTOGRAPHS of any man-made satellites in outer space beyond the "exosphere." NASA admits all PHOTOGRAPHS of man-made satellites in outer space beyond the "exosphere" are photo-shopped or composite images or an artist's conception.
4th) This article has an assumed "white supremacist" view or Euro-centric view of the spherical earth, completely excluding the facts that the ancient Chinese, Egyptians & people of India believed in a spherical earth & used mathematics to support their view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
5th) White supremacists and/or Euro-centrists invented the lie that everyone before the Greeks believed that Earth was supported on the back of elephants. There is a wiki article confirming this entitled: "World Elephant."
"The concept of a World Elephant is not found anywhere in the Puranas or the Epics. In the epics and major Puranas, there "is no myth of a world-upholding elephant", and Al Biruni makes no mention of it, only quoting Brahmagupta who states "the earth is the only low thing".
The alleged rendition of the World Turtle supporting one or several World Elephants is recorded in 1599 in a letter by a non-entity of a scholar named Emanual de Veiga."
- A talk page is not a soapbox. The points you make are either straw men, because the article does not state what you claim it states, or else they are well outside the bounds of WP:RELIABLE. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted. Of course you are welcome to contribute to any discussion that could reasonably result in improving the article. Strebe (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hebrew Old Testament As Earliest Known Written Recording of Round Earth
I'd like to propose that the biblical accounts of Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:10 be added to this page as a reference to the earliest recording of the spherical or round earth, Unless source cited for Ancient Greek recordings provides a valid date for those in his book. See  and  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32EE:3550:6899:4BCD:FB8D:913B (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, Isaiah 40:22 is already discussed. Job 26:10 is just as ambiguous, and whether or not there is a reference to any shape depends on the translation. See . It is worth mentioning that many of these verses are parts of poems. See this article discussion on Isaiah 40:22 at []. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Job has not been discussed as much as I would have hoped (referring to the archives). If we are to include an example of the Bible's allusive poetry, Job's passages would be the best example of this "circle" as it describes night and day (or the separation of light and darkness). Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- After further review, I hereby withdraw my entire argument on the basis that a "circle" described bibically can describe either a flat or spherical shape as it is not definitive; any further rendering of these circle passages to argue a sphere are nothing short of excessiveness. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Version of English
The English was inconsistent, therefore I changed it to British English as that's what most of it is in, and it's more respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4429:DD00:8570:4115:F389:2113 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The word "respected" is a passive without an agent. At least, as in Wikipedia rules previously, usage should be consistent in any one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
There is no support for anything related to "Kruger." I attempted to delete, but it is a bit complex for me. Can someone review and implement the deletion(s) if you agree? -- Ray Birks (Chicago, Illinois) 4 Sept. 2017.
- User:RayBirks, I found your note here after I reverted your deletion. Thanks for trying to help. I can’t tell what you mean by “no support”. Do you mean Krüger is not a reliable source, or do you simply mean that the link no longer exists? Several suggestions:
- Sign your Talk page comments with “~~~~” (without quote marks) instead of writing our your name and date and so forth. Wikipedia will automatically sign your user name and provide the date.
- Please don’t delete bibliographic material. Whether the link functions or not, the citation for the book was valid.
- If a link seems to be dead, please search the Internet for an alternative. Material often gets moved, copied, archived. Deleting references and links without exercising due diligence is not helpful. For links that are truly dead, we often use The Wayback Machine.
- The reference you removed was only one of three references to the same source, so when you removed that one, you did not accomplish the removal of the citation, if that was your goal.
- I know Wikipedia is complicated. Good luck in the future. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
What is the relevance to this article of the following sentence: "Also of interest to note is on one side of the world, there is seen towering Chinese pagodas, while on the opposite side (upside-down) there were European cathedrals."? I see none. CielProfond (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Archimedes' On Floating Bodies doesn't really have anything to do with the round earth
The subsection on Archimedes mentions that in On Floating Bodies, he proves that the oceans are spherical, "thus giving the first demonstrative proof" of the spherical earth. I'm pretty sure this is a misreading of that work.
I don't have a copy with me, but I recall that Archimedes does prove that any body of fluid at gravitational equilibrium will have a "spherical" surface. Essentially though, he proves that the surface of a fluid at equilibrium is everywhere tangent to the force. If one already believes that the earth has a center, and that gravitational forces always point towards it, then you wind up with the conclusion that the surface is a sphere. His argument works equally well in a "flat earth" scenario, and the conclusion is that the surface of the fluid is planar. The shape of the earth is definitely an input to his proof and not a conclusion from it, and nothing in the core of the argument really has anything to do with the shape of the earth.
I'm going to go ahead an remove that section. If I'm off-base here, override me. I can't guarantee that I'll ever read any responses here! 2601:C1:401:5840:EC38:FC0F:B10F:214 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I wound up checking back, and I saw that the removal was reverted without explanation, and then expanded on, but it is still wrong: the sphericality of the earth is an *input* to the proof, and no part of the argument implies in any way that the earth or the oceans or anything else is spherical unless the arguer is already aware of at least one of those facts. 2601:C1:401:5840:EC38:FC0F:B10F:214 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Remember on Wikipedia we are not allowed to make our own interpretations of the meaning or validity of a primary source like Archimedes' On Floating Bodies. I've found a reiiable secondary source that shows Archimedes maintained the sphrricity of the Earth. Rorres states that "In his Propositions 8 and 9, Archimedes assumed that Earth was a sphere and that a body of liquid on it would assume a spherical shape, in accordance with his Proposition 2, On Floating Bodies I (cf., Ref. 5, p. 254)." This conforms to the apparent meaning of Proposition 2, which I've also cited in the article, as a demonstration of the spherical shape of a liquid on a spherical Earth.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SteveMcCluskey:I think you and the IP editor are talking past each other. The IP editor’s objection appears to have been the statement that Archimedes gave a “demonstrative proof” of earth’s sphericity. The IP editor appears to agree that Archimedes believed the earth to be spherical. I presume your recent edit satisfies the IP editor’s objection. Strebe (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks @Strebe: Good point, but as I read Archimedes, he seems to believe he has a proof of the sphericity of the Earth. He gives a demonstration in Prop 2 and uses the result later in Props 8 and 9. Whether it is a valid proof is another question. As you say, I hope the recent edit resolves the issues. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, the main concern was that (while he may have thought otherwise) as the our understanding of proof has crystallized over 2000 years it is now clear that Archimedes didn't prove that the earth is roudn. The new changes definitely address that. A small secondary concern was that, for this reason, his work in that text has only superficially to do with the shape of the earth and possibly doesn't belong on this article. However, I agree that this is an interpretation and stylistic consideration and that I don't see any real problem with the way it's currently posed. Thanks! 2601:C1:401:5840:28C7:3A1C:C09B:D05F (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)