Ancient Globular Earth Theory

From what I've seen, there seems to be a consensus that a round Earth theory is only as old as Columbus.  I will grant that this is the first empirical evidence.  But certainly a group of educated skeptics has arguments against the ancients.  Plato, I do believe, posited a round Earth in the Timaeus.  Archimedes gives a proof of a spherical Earth in "On Floating Bodies."  [available in "The works of Archimedes" edited by Sir Thomas Heath].  Ptolemy, who created a geocentric model of the universe also posits a spherical earth in Book 1, section 4 of the Almagest.  These theories are over 2000 years old.  How are these thinkers refuted?  Do I actually have to give the arguments?

They did not use modern scientific method. Thus all thier work can't be taken seriously.

The earth is flat.

What about reasoning a priori?  We still use that today just as the did.

Why is modern scientific method a means to knowledge?

There are really only three proofs the ancient Greeks gave for the rotundity of the earth. They are:

1. Ships appear to sink into the horizon as they recede far from the observer
2. The shadow on the moon during a Lunar Eclipse is round
3. The southern constellations of the night sky appear to rise as you travel Southwards

Samuel Birley Rowbotham and the authors of the Flat Earth Literature deal with these proofs nearly exclusively. On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of the human eye - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.

We know that this explanation is true because it's a fact that a half sunken ship can be restored by the aid of a telescope.

As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Two other arguments.

The surface of a body of liquid is the surface of a sphere with center coinciding with the center of the earth.  Otherwise the liquid would be in motion.  (I could rigorously prove if needed).  This is kind of iffy.

Apart from different horizons, the rising times of stars vary for people in a west-east direction.  Now, apparently this "rising" of heavenly bodies is an illusion.  I would want to know what this illusion is, taking into consideration time zones.  Would you say that they just reach different limits of the eye as the move east to west for different people?

As far as the Lunar Eclipse goes, there is no evidence that the shadow which manifests on the moon during a Lunar Eclipse originates from the earth at all. That shadow could come from any celestial body intersecting the light between the sun and moon. The only reason the Greeks and ancients were able to predict the eclipse was because the predictions were based on recurring charts and tables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse is a phenomenon which comes in patterns. There's a good chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony on the subject.

In response to the southern constellations rising as the observer travels southward, that's to be expected with the stars being only about 3100 miles above the survace of the earth. As you travel southwards you are changing your perspective in relation to the stars and earth.

I would suggest reading the FAQ before you spend too much time here.

What displays an insufficient reading of the FAQ?

What displays an insufficient reading of the FAQ?

Honestly, and no offense, that's a pretty dumb question. Why should I spend the time identifying to you areas of our theory you do not understand simply because you don't want to read a document that was created for that exact purpose?

Seriously, we get dozens of you guys that pretend to have a new idea and also pretend to have read the FAQ. I know you haven't, you know you haven't, let's not argue about it on a forum pretending you have (skimming doesn't count).

Also, searching the forums will be useful. You have some of the same questions that have been asked several times.

ok, ok.  I did step out of line.  I'm sorry for doing the noob thing.... it is childish.  I do think you have reasonable accounts for the phenomena we experience.  I don't find them convincing because I am prejudiced.  I don't think my prejudice is unreasonable (although the way that I apply my prejudice is unreasonable, ignorant, and unjust).  The accounts on the FAQ are adequate, or would be if I devoted a lot of time to it.

The real thing behind my post is that, before I had looked at the greeks, I thought that a round earth was introduced within the last 500 years.  Thus, it looked like one guy did something that could suggests a round earth.  And individuals are liable to make mistakes.  But, because this issue has been around practically forever, people have always been seeing evidence for one side or the other.

One is liable to explain phenomena in favor of the round earth if one starts from aesthetic principles (spheres, in my opinion, hold the eye in a special way, especially with respect to platonic solids and such).  If one trusts there senses, one is bound to explain phenomena according to flat earth theory (take Lucretius).  And trusting our senses is far more reliable than assuming there is "beauty" in the universe, especially because, as your impression on me causes me to believe, you would say that a flat Earth is equally, if not more, "beautiful" than a round one.

Also, I must admit, I was curious to see what kind of people are proponents of Flat Earth Theory.  Indeed, if you were going to be convinced that the Earth is round, it would have already happened.  It would be vain of me to think that I could change any one's belief  .

My post was more to see how I would be refuted than to actually convince anyone.  Of course, I wasn't entirely without hope that I would present some kind of idea that might just......

There are really only three proofs the ancient Greeks gave for the rotundity of the earth. They are:

1. Ships appear to sink into the horizon as they recede far from the observer
2. The shadow on the moon during a Lunar Eclipse is round
3. The southern constellations of the night sky appear to rise as you travel Southwards

Samuel Birley Rowbotham and the authors of the Flat Earth Literature deal with these proofs nearly exclusively. On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of the human eye - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.
..
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:
..
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
..

Tom,

You will have to get out of your armchair and provide some real evidence (e.g. a series of photographs) and mathematics to support these amazing claims, which go against the current model of perspective.   A model which, incidentally, is has been used thousands of times for computer graphics in films, games, etc.

All the people in the written accounts are conveniently dead, and we don't know what kind of telescopes, what kinds of ships, and what the atmospheric conditions exactly were.

   "it's a fact that a half sunken ship can be restored by the aid of a telescope." MMmmmmm.

Unless you can provide solid evidence to support this fact (i.e. which stands up to scrutiny), its just ancient crackpot pseudo-science.

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Please elaborate.  It's just not good enough to say "yep, it works".  These are truly amazing claims and therefore deserve more than just a "nod" of agreement.

Quote from: narcberry on April 09, 2008, 10:03:29 PM

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Please elaborate.  It's just not good enough to say "yep, it works".  These are truly amazing claims and therefore deserve more than just a "nod" of agreement.

Do not question Mr. Narcberry 

Quote from: Moon squirter on April 10, 2008, 01:25:54 AM

Quote from: narcberry on April 09, 2008, 10:03:29 PM

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Please elaborate.  It's just not good enough to say "yep, it works".  These are truly amazing claims and therefore deserve more than just a "nod" of agreement.

Do not question Mr. Narcberry 

I attest to the correctness of this as well.

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on April 10, 2008, 04:20:28 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on April 10, 2008, 01:25:54 AM

Quote from: narcberry on April 09, 2008, 10:03:29 PM

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Please elaborate.  It's just not good enough to say "yep, it works".  These are truly amazing claims and therefore deserve more than just a "nod" of agreement.

Do not question Mr. Narcberry 

I attest to the correctness of this as well.

I obviously forgot about dissin our learn'ed friend, Mr Narc.

You will have to get out of your armchair and provide some real evidence (e.g. a series of photographs) and mathematics to support these amazing claims, which go against the current model of perspective.

I've clearly given you multiple first hand accounts. If you choose to believe it's all a conspiracy, that's on you.

All the people in the written accounts are conveniently dead, and we don't know what kind of telescopes, what kinds of ships, and what the atmospheric conditions exactly were.

If you don't agree with the results you can always repreform the experiments.

Hey tom, I don't mean to put u down, o wait ya I do.
Why wood you leave a message so long?  Look on the first page.  Nobody is going to read that all, I mean holy crap.

Hey tom, I don't mean to put u down, o wait ya I do.
Why wood you leave a message so long?  Look on the first page.  Nobody is going to read that all, I mean holy crap.

If you don't like my summary, Narcberry has a shorter one for you.

Quote from: narcberry on April 10, 2008, 06:39:44 PM

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on April 10, 2008, 04:20:28 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on April 10, 2008, 01:25:54 AM

Quote from: narcberry on April 09, 2008, 10:03:29 PM

I've done these myself, and will attest to their correctness.

Please elaborate.  It's just not good enough to say "yep, it works".  These are truly amazing claims and therefore deserve more than just a "nod" of agreement.

Do not question Mr. Narcberry 

I attest to the correctness of this as well.

I obviously forgot about dissin our learn'ed friend, Mr Narc.

Best not forget it again

There are really only three proofs the ancient Greeks gave for the rotundity of the earth. They are:

1. Ships appear to sink into the horizon as they recede far from the observer
2. The shadow on the moon during a Lunar Eclipse is round
3. The southern constellations of the night sky appear to rise as you travel Southwards

These are not the only three proofs known since the Greeks. These are just the ones Tom Bishop understands.

The apparent movement of the stars in perfect circles, the apparent movement of the Sun and Moon in almost perfect circles around the Earth, with cyclical movement of the orbits throughout the year and the lunar month, and the way the position of the stars and celestial objects change depending on the latitude of the observer on Earth, are all evidence of a spherical Earth and are all well observed phenomena since the rise of the Greek, Maya, Aztec and Celt civilizations, to name just a few.

The mathematic precision of the astronomical observations made during the last 2000 years or more is quite astounding and all these observations absolutely demolish every flat Earth model mentioned in this forum. Combined with the measurements made at different latitudes, they demonstrate the shape of the Earth with a precision good enough to navigate across oceans, even when a mistake could mean death.

Tom's explanations more or less give an idea of why different people see the celestial objects where they see them, but get embarrassingly contradicted every time they are checked against real observations of the real place where celestial objects are in the sky, as they have been mapped for centuries.

These are not the only three proofs known since the Greeks. These are just the ones Tom Bishop understands.

The apparent movement of the stars in perfect circles, the apparent movement of the Sun and Moon in almost perfect circles around the Earth, with cyclical movement of the orbits throughout the year and the lunar month, and the way the position of the stars and celestial objects change depending on the latitude of the observer on Earth, are all evidence of a spherical Earth and are all well observed phenomena since the rise of the Greek, Maya, Aztec and Celt civilizations, to name just a few.

The mathematic precision of the astronomical observations made during the last 2000 years or more is quite astounding and all these observations absolutely demolish every flat Earth model mentioned in this forum. Combined with the measurements made at different latitudes, they demonstrate the shape of the Earth with a precision good enough to navigate across oceans, even when a mistake could mean death.

Tom's explanations more or less give an idea of why different people see the celestial objects where they see them, but get embarrassingly contradicted every time they are checked against real observations of the real place where celestial objects are in the sky, as they have been mapped for centuries.

Nope.