Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy

If you refer to BK. 1 Ch. 4 of the Almagest

That the earth too is sensibly spherical.  For it is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well.

If it were concave, the stars would appear to rise earlier for more westernly observers. If it were planar, they would rise and set for all observers on the earth at the same times.

What good is the word of a fraud?

http://www.newsfinder.org/site/readings/the_time_of_ptolemy

"Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses. A study of Ptolemy's figures was done in 1977, and the findings were that most of his data was fraudulent. For more on this subject, one should refer to the book by R. Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Russell_Newton

Robert Russell Newton, also R. R. Newton (July 7, 1918 - June 2, 1991) was an American physicist, astronomer, and historian of science.

Newton was Supervisor of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. Newton was known for his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (1977). In Newton's view, Ptolemy was "the most successful fraud in the history of science". Newton showed that Ptolemy had predominantly obtained the astronomical results described in his work The Almagest by computation, and not by the direct observations that Ptolemy described.

"Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses.

I'm not sure any proponent of FET should go around tossing this particular accusation at anybody, even if they are just quoting somebody else.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 04:59:10 PM

"Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses.

I'm not sure any proponent of FET should go around tossing this particular accusation at anybody, even if they are just quoting somebody else.

I think it is relevant if someone is stating they have "conclusive proof" and then other sources state that proof was fabricated, and isn't based off of actual observations.

I think Tom gets this win.

He may have been a fraud, but his logic is sound given that such observations are readily made today.

Quote from: Around And About on April 11, 2011, 05:24:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 04:59:10 PM

"Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses.

I'm not sure any proponent of FET should go around tossing this particular accusation at anybody, even if they are just quoting somebody else.

I think it is relevant if someone is stating they have "conclusive proof" and then other sources state that proof was fabricated, and isn't based off of actual observations.

I think Tom gets this win.

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolemy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For it is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later. For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Because the logic is sound and complies with current day observations.  Only one who cannot or refuses to recognize logic would disregard a passage based on possiblility of lying, rather than whether or not the logic holds true.

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later. 

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

I was actually curious about a lucid refutation of Ptolemy's observations/calculations/complete fabrications, myself.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

They're all invalid because they could all happen on a Flat Earth. Ptolemy clearly didn't read Earth Not a Globe.

Hi ptolemy, Welcome to TFES.
   Are you a descendant from Ptolemy?

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:55:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

They're all invalid because they could all happen on a Flat Earth. The author clearly didn't read Earth Not a Globe.

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

So you agree that we are starting from common premises but you clearly disagree with the conclusions that Ptolemy has drawn from them.

Therefore, the data he started with is not invalid irregardless of Ptolemy's past or history.

So you should be arguing his interpretation, not crying that his data is invalid because he participated in 'fraudulent' data... especially since you agree with that initial data that was cited.

So, argue the conclusions he drew, and please stop attacking his premise or his character in an effort to derail the point, especially since neither is relevant to his logical processes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2011, 08:57:44 AM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:55:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

They're all invalid because they could all happen on a Flat Earth. The author clearly didn't read Earth Not a Globe.

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

So you agree that we are starting from common premises but you clearly disagree with the conclusions that Ptolemy has drawn from them.

Therefore, the data he started with is not invalid irregardless of Ptolemy's past or history.

So you should be arguing his interpretation, not crying that his data is invalid because he participated in 'fraudulent' data... especially since you agree with that initial data that was cited.

So, argue the conclusions he drew, and please stop attacking his premise or his character in an effort to derail the point, especially since neither is relevant to his logical processes.

ily oracle <3

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2011, 08:57:44 AM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:55:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolemy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

They're all invalid because they could all happen on a Flat Earth. The author clearly didn't read Earth Not a Globe.

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

So you agree that we are starting from common premises but you clearly disagree with the conclusions that Ptolemy has drawn from them.

Therefore, the data he started with is not invalid irregardless of Ptolemy's past or history.

So you should be arguing his interpretation, not crying that his data is invalid because he participated in 'fraudulent' data... especially since you agree with that initial data that was cited.

So, argue the conclusions he drew, and please stop attacking his premise or his character in an effort to derail the point, especially since neither is relevant to his logical processes.

Knowing that Ptolmy is a fraud, why should we believe that his assumptions necessarily hold true?

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon."

How does Ptolemy know where the eclipses are and are not being seen? Did he go and collect any data himself? No. We know from "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" that his book Almagest is filled with lies and imagination.

Quote from: Oracle on April 12, 2011, 11:05:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2011, 08:57:44 AM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:55:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: Oracle on April 11, 2011, 05:32:15 PM

Tom's ad hominem on Ptolemy may or may not be accurate, but the observations listed above are clearly evident today as true and accurate.  You can argue against the conclusions he drew due to this, but his premis is sound in this case and whether his data was calculated or not, the foundation of the observations sited is sound.

It has been found that Ptolmy lied and just made stuff up as he went along. He has been called the most successful fraud in the history of science.

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well."

This considered, why should this above quote from the OP be taken with any credibility?

Exactly which premise are you saying is invalid or fraudulent?

1. It is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  

2. We find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours;

2a. that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers.

2b. the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances

They're all invalid because they could all happen on a Flat Earth. The author clearly didn't read Earth Not a Globe.

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

So you agree that we are starting from common premises but you clearly disagree with the conclusions that Ptolemy has drawn from them.

Therefore, the data he started with is not invalid irregardless of Ptolemy's past or history.

So you should be arguing his interpretation, not crying that his data is invalid because he participated in 'fraudulent' data... especially since you agree with that initial data that was cited.

So, argue the conclusions he drew, and please stop attacking his premise or his character in an effort to derail the point, especially since neither is relevant to his logical processes.

Knowing that Ptolmy is a fraud, why should we believe that his assumptions necessarily hold true?

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon."

How does Ptolemy know where the eclipses are and are not being seen? Did he go and collect any data himself? No. We know from "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" that his book Almagest is filled with lies and imagination.

so are you saying everyone can see the eclipses?
no, that is poposterous.
and we dont know becuase of a book.  the book is a secondary source.  the information that the eclipse is not viewed by everyone at the same time is an observation you can see today
how do you know his observations of moon phases were assumptions?

Knowing that Ptolmy is a fraud, why should we believe that his assumptions necessarily hold true?

"For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon."

How does Ptolemy know where the eclipses are and are not being seen? Did he go and collect any data himself? No. We know from "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" that his book Almagest is filled with lies and imagination.

Whether he gathered this information from numerous sources or used calculations to come to this conclusion is not relevant IF we know it is true based on current day observations.

...or are you actually stating that everyone around the disk actually sees the eclipse at the same time and not at different times based on their E-W location around the surface of the disk?  May I ask what your sources are that states that everyone on the earth experiences the eclipse at exactly the same time?

Whether he gathered this information from numerous sources or used calculations to come to this conclusion is not relevant IF we know it is true based on current day observations.

...or are you actually stating that everyone around the disk actually sees the eclipse at the same time and not at different times based on their E-W location around the surface of the disk?  May I ask what your sources are that states that everyone on the earth experiences the eclipse at exactly the same time?

I don't know exactly who can and cannot see an eclipse at the same time on the earth, but Ptolemy seems to know.

Ptolemy is speaking authoritatively on the matter as if his sources coming from anywhere else except his own imagination. Did Ptolemy view the eclipses or celestial events at different points on earth simultaneously as to conclude that the earth is spherical? Did he show that bodies descend and ascend from the horizon exactly as they would if the earth were a sphere and no other shape?

No. Ptolemy is a fraud and his data is fictitious. Ptolemy is no authority on matters of astronomy. Proven frauds have no credibility in their field.

I don't know exactly who can and cannot see an eclipse at the same time on the earth, but Ptolemy seems to know.

Ptolemy is speaking authoritatively on the matter as if his sources coming from anywhere else except his own imagination. Did Ptolemy view the eclipses or celestial events at different points on earth simultaneously as to conclude that the earth is spherical? Did he show that bodies descend and ascent from the horizon exactly as they would if the earth were a sphere and no other shape?

No. Ptolemy is a fraud and his data is fictitious. Ptolemy is no authority on matters of astronomy. Proven frauds have no credibility in their field.

Since you are so bent on this "Ptolemy" is a fraud... let's remove this from the discussion and just use a generic person who makes the same claim, here, I'm going to say it, this is me and not Ptolmey.

It is NOT possible for all observers on the earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times.  In fact it is well documented that they do not and the earth is divided up into about 24 distinct time zones because of it.  This is a well documented phenomena and easily verifiable just by picking up a phone and calling someone halfway across the world to verify what they see at the same time that you are seeing it.  This is very clearly a true statement in and by itself.

In fact, based on many centuries of documented celestial observations, the sun does appear to rise in the east and set in the west such that the further east you are, the earlier you will see a sun rise and set and someone further west will witness the sun rise and set later than you do.  Again, this is a well documented fact, and if you doubt this, you are welcome to call someone significantly further east or west from you (by an order of more than 1 time zones), and ask them what their observation are of the sun at the times you are witnessing dawn or dusk.

Similarly observed and recorded is the observation of eclipses which do appear to occur at a different standardized time (GMT) depending on the position of the observer across the face of the earth.  Again well documented, but if you have doubts, then you can wait for the next solar eclipse and do a 3-way conversation with your friends in the far east and west of your position and ask them to tell you when they observe the full eclipse while you are documenting when you see it as well.  However, until you can do this, we have no reason at this time to doubt the documented globular occurrences of such.

In fact, you could run a correlation against the distances East and West along the same latitude against the times of occurrences, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will seem to be a direct correlation between these distances and the times when these events occur such that they are proportional to each other.

Now... I have not made any logical assessments yet regarding the shape of the earth at this time.  Are we in agreement with these premises that I, personally (not Ptolmey), have laid forth?  Are we at least in agreement and on the same page at this point?

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

Incorrect. See also: proof by contradiction.

If you refer to BK. 1 Ch. 4 of the Almagest

That the earth too is sensibly spherical.  For it is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well.

If it were concave, the stars would appear to rise earlier for more westernly observers. If it were planar, they would rise and set for all observers on the earth at the same times.

How was this verified exactly? Ptolemy couldn't telephone someone who lived a few thousand km away and ask them if they were watching the lunar eclipse while he was. Nor did accurate clocks exist at the time, making it questionable whether he actually had anything to back the claim that distance was proportional to time difference. Given Ptolemy's fraudulence I am inclined to believe invented this information, and probably much more.

Another point Ptolemy didn't acknowledge, though Tom Bishop pointed it out, is that all these observations are consistent with a flat earth and the near-circular orbits of the heavenly bodies about the north pole. Even if these observations had something backing them up it wouldn't prove anything.

*sigh*  Eclipses are rare enough events that they would have been recorded in great detail by astrologers of the day.  Even today, eclipses make the news.  It wouldn't have been to hard to find out where and when the eclipses were observed.

*sigh*  Eclipses are rare enough events that they would have been recorded in great detail by astrologers of the day.  Even today, eclipses make the news.  It wouldn't have been to hard to find out where and when the eclipses were observed.

What does the ease of observing the event have to do with the accuracy of one's statements?

It also "wouldn't have been hard" for Ptolemy to look out his window and make the astronomical observations he claims to have made. However, he instead chose to lie and make false statements throughout the bulk of his work. Ptolmey is a fraud and that's that. He is not an authority of astronomy. Posting his claims here have no merit.

What good is the word of a fraud?

http://www.newsfinder.org/site/readings/the_time_of_ptolemy

"Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses. A study of Ptolemy's figures was done in 1977, and the findings were that most of his data was fraudulent. For more on this subject, one should refer to the book by R. Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy."

Did you miss this part of the same article?

In his defense, he was living during a time when "politically incorrect" beliefs could be grounds for punishment. It actually may not have been safe for him to expose the truth; instead he may have been forced to make his numbers fit into incorrect theories. He knew enough about the truth...the precession of the equinoxes and the theories that postulated that the earth, in fact, revolved around the sun. Apparently, fear for his own life is the reason why he did not act on his knowledge.

Did you miss this part of the same article?

Quote

In his defense, he was living during a time when "politically incorrect" beliefs could be grounds for punishment. It actually may not have been safe for him to expose the truth; instead he may have been forced to make his numbers fit into incorrect theories. He knew enough about the truth...the precession of the equinoxes and the theories that postulated that the earth, in fact, revolved around the sun. Apparently, fear for his own life is the reason why he did not act on his knowledge.

I saw that. If Ptolemy wrote his lies because he didn't want to cause controversy by conducting actual science, that still makes him a liar.

Quote from: Oracle on April 12, 2011, 11:05:36 AM

Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.

Incorrect. See also: proof by contradiction.

Actually, it is you who are incorrect...

Restating:  Agreeing with the premises seeks to validate those self same premises, and not necessarily the conclusions drawn.  "proof by contradiction" is irrelevant as it is dealing with the end result, not the initial premises.

Tom, are you going to respond to this, or not?

Since you are so bent on this "Ptolemy" is a fraud... let's remove this from the discussion and just use a generic person who makes the same claim, here, I'm going to say it, this is me and not Ptolmey.

It is NOT possible for all observers on the earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times.  In fact it is well documented that they do not and the earth is divided up into about 24 distinct time zones because of it.  This is a well documented phenomena and easily verifiable just by picking up a phone and calling someone halfway across the world to verify what they see at the same time that you are seeing it.  This is very clearly a true statement in and by itself.

In fact, based on many centuries of documented celestial observations, the sun does appear to rise in the east and set in the west such that the further east you are, the earlier you will see a sun rise and set and someone further west will witness the sun rise and set later than you do.  Again, this is a well documented fact, and if you doubt this, you are welcome to call someone significantly further east or west from you (by an order of more than 1 time zones), and ask them what their observation are of the sun at the times you are witnessing dawn or dusk.

Similarly observed and recorded is the observation of eclipses which do appear to occur at a different standardized time (GMT) depending on the position of the observer across the face of the earth.  Again well documented, but if you have doubts, then you can wait for the next solar eclipse and do a 3-way conversation with your friends in the far east and west of your position and ask them to tell you when they observe the full eclipse while you are documenting when you see it as well.  However, until you can do this, we have no reason at this time to doubt the documented globular occurrences of such.

In fact, you could run a correlation against the distances East and West along the same latitude against the times of occurrences, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will seem to be a direct correlation between these distances and the times when these events occur such that they are proportional to each other.

Now... I have not made any logical assessments yet regarding the shape of the earth at this time.  Are we in agreement with these premises that I, personally (not Ptolmey), have laid forth?  Are we at least in agreement and on the same page at this point?

i didn't respond to that post because I felt that much of it was rambling. But here you go:

Since you are so bent on this "Ptolemy" is a fraud... let's remove this from the discussion and just use a generic person who makes the same claim, here, I'm going to say it, this is me and not Ptolmey.

It doesn't matter if it's you or Ptolemy who makes the claim. If the account is fictitious or imagined it's invalid.

It is NOT possible for all observers on the earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times.  In fact it is well documented that they do not and the earth is divided up into about 24 distinct time zones because of it.  This is a well documented phenomena and easily verifiable just by picking up a phone and calling someone halfway across the world to verify what they see at the same time that you are seeing it.  This is very clearly a true statement in and by itself.

Proof? How do you know that the bodies descend and ascends exactly as they would if the earth were a sphere and no other shape? Your evidence seems to be that this is "well known". Now, I don't have doubts that bodies descend and scend from the horizon. But if you're saying that they do so in a manner exactly and mathematically expected on a globe, you'll have to demonstrate this beyond just saying that they do.

In fact, based on many centuries of documented celestial observations,

Kind of like Ptolemy's well respected celestial observations that so many people put up on a pedestal?

the sun does appear to rise in the east and set in the west such that the further east you are, the earlier you will see a sun rise and set and someone further west will witness the sun rise and set later than you do

This an inaccurate statement.

Say that I am standing 20 feet from the North Pole. I take out my compass and travel Westwards. No matter how much I travel Westwards, the sun isn't going to rise or set any later.

That's an extreme example; but it's applicable when you think of what the sun should be doing between someone who lives in Britain and someone who lives in Canada. This simple thought experiment shows that the time zones aren't exactly the same as they would be on the Equator.

The time zones in this Mercator map for example are entirely artificial and have nothing to do with what the sun is doing overhead:



(Larger version)

The time zones should be curving and squishing to a point at the North and South Pole, yet in all of the Mercator maps the time zones are straight lines.

Therefore the time zone maps are bunk. You're going to have to do original research and demonstrate that the position of the sun at noon is exactly consistent as what is hypothesized by the Round Earth Model.

Again, this is a well documented fact, and if you doubt this, you are welcome to call someone significantly further east or west from you (by an order of more than 1 time zones), and ask them what their observation are of the sun at the times you are witnessing dawn or dusk.

If I doubt your claim I'll have to do my own research?

How about you do the research and demonstrate your claim. You're the claimant here. Show that the sun is exactly where the Round Earth model says it is and no different.

The time zones should be curving and squishing to a point at the North and South Pole, yet in all of the Mercator maps the time zones are straight lines.

Therefore the time zone maps are bunk.

If you think this, you don't understand the mercator projection.  The whole point of this type of projection is to take the curving and squishing lines and make them straight.

That's an extreme example; but it's applicable when you think of what the sun should be doing between someone who lives in Britain and someone who lives in Canada. This simple thought experiment shows that the time zones aren't exactly the same as they would be on the Equator.

The time zones in this Mercator map for example are entirely artificial and have nothing to do with what the sun is doing overhead:



The time zones should be curving and squishing to a point at the North and South Pole, yet in all of the Mercator maps the time zones are straight lines.

Therefore the time zone maps are bunk. You're going to have to do original research and demonstrate that the position of the sun at noon is exactly consistent as what is hypothesized  by the Round Earth Model.

Quote

Again, this is a well documented fact, and if you doubt this, you are welcome to call someone significantly further east or west from you (by an order of more than 1 time zones), and ask them what their observation are of the sun at the times you are witnessing dawn or dusk.

If I doubt your claim I'll have to do my own research?

How about you do the research and demonstrate your claim. You're the claimant here. Show that the sun is exactly where the Round Earth model says it is and no different.

Lrn not to use Mercator for anything but political boundaries.

This would be a more appropriate projection since we need to realistic distances

The time zones should be curving and squishing to a point at the North and South Pole, yet in all of the Mercator maps the time zones are straight lines.

And they do in an appropriate projection that conserves distances.

Therefore the time zone maps are bunk. You're going to have to do original research and demonstrate that the position of the sun at noon is exactly consistent as what is hypothesized  by the Round Earth Model.

One of the beautiful things about the sun is that it is an extremely accurate guide to navigation.  With the knowledge of GMT time and travelling east or west you can find your longitude just by getting a fix on the sun when it is its highest (noon) point.  The results are consistent and have been used for generations.  One of the many applications of the Round Earth Model that works - as well as time zones as they are roughly based of the suns longitudinal position within political borders.

ow about you do the research and demonstrate your claim. You're the claimant here. Show that the sun is exactly where the Round Earth model says it is and no different.

It is exactly where it is supposed to be.

Berny
Ninja's again!