Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?

According to MS (mainstream) history, Pythagoras, or at least his school, was the first person or institution in recorded history to believe the earth was spherical, so I don't know why Eric Dubay and many other flatists keep saying it was just some quirk or innovation made by Copernicus and his successors.
Probably to make round earth look more like the new kid on the block, and flat earth look more like it's had a long history of support in western academia, which isn't the case.
While flat earth is the older theory, round earth has been the dominant theory regarding the geometry of the earth for over 2000 years, or for most western intellectual history, which in many ways began with Pythagoras and his philosophical and scientific contemporaries like Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus and so on.

While not all of the great natural philosophers believed in a round earth, increasingly it became the dominant theory after both Plato and Aristotle adopted and supported it.
The main proofs for why most round earthists, which probably includes 99% of the population of the world, believe in round earth is probably just because that's what their teachers and Nasa told them to believe, and they never gave it a second thought.
Or some half baked thought like, well where's the edge?
Now I'm not saying there aren't any compelling, logical reasons to believe in a round earth, there seem to be many, but the fact remains for good or ill, children have been brainwashed into accepting it without question, and many adults, even the more intelligent and learned ones, might still be biased and largely incapable of critiquing it.

I don't trust government, I think it's largely an instrument of the elite to sheer the population, and so I don't trust government/corporate science, either.
I don't trust anything absolutely, some things I trust a little, but that trust has to be earned, science, and especially government, hasn't earned my trust, I'm permitted nearly no say in how we're governed, certainly not in whether I wished to be governed at all.

That's why I created this thread, I want to go back to a time before modern government, before pictures and videos from Nasa, many or all of which may be doctored, if they faked the moon landings, and they may have, they may be faking it all, they have trillions upon trillions of dollars to do just that.

Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?
Whatever proofs he had, or at least thought he had, are proofs we don't have to rely on Nasa for, they're proofs available to us all, people with modest means to verify for themselves.
So then, what are all the reasons why Aristotle, not you, not your professor, but Aristotle and his contemporaries believed the earth to be round?
I want to go over each one very carefully, this is going to be the ultimate proof/disproof for cynics and skeptics like me, not what government and its vested interests claims.

According to MS history, Pythagoras, or at least his school, was the first person or institution in recorded history to believe the earth was spherical, so I don't know why Eric Dubay and many other flatists keep saying it was just some quirk or innovation made by Copernicus and his successors.
Probably to make round earth look more like the new kid on the block, and flat earth look like it's had a long history of support in western academia, which isn't the case.
While flat earth is the older theory, round earth has been the dominant theory regarding the geometry of the earth for over 2000 years, or for most western intellectual history, which in many ways began with Pythagoras and his philosophical and scientific contemporaries like Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus and so on.
While not all of the great natural philosophers believed in a round earth, increasingly it became the dominant theory after both Plato and Aristotle adopted and supported it.
The main proofs for many if not most round earthists, which probably includes 99% of the population of the world, believe in round earth is probably just because that's their teachers and Nasa told them to believe, and they never gave it a second thought.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any compelling, reasonable reasons to believe in a round earth, there seem to be, but the fact remains for good or ill, children have been brainwashed into accepting them without question.
I don't trust government, I think it's largely an instrument of the elite to sheer the population, and so I don't trust government/corporate science, either.
That's why I created this thread, I want to go back to a time before modern government, before pictures and videos from Nasa, many or all of which may be doctored.
Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?
Whatever proofs he had, or at least thought he had, or proofs we don't have to rely on Nasa for, they're proofs available to us all, people with modest means to verify for themselves.
So then what are all the reasons why Aristotle, not you, but Aristotle and his contemporaries, believed the earth to be round?
I want to go over each one very carefully, this is going to be the ultimate proof for or against for cynics and skeptics like me, not what government and its vested interests say.

May I most humbly ask you, where exactly Aristotle suggested the Earth may be round? From reading his "Organon", "Physics" and "Metaphysics" I remember he thought the spherical shape is perfect. That is why the Primary Engine should be spherical, for it must be perfect. However, the question remains, if the Engine belongs to the area of actually existing - or potentially existing. In the latter case, the Engine would be hidden from our eyes, yet govern the Universe.

Regarding the Earth, that might mean that some regions of flat Earth could belong to the area of potentially existing, thus being "not existing", from the usual point of view. Thus, Aristotle's theory may explain problems with FE map, for example, - and actually support FE model instead of RE.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:56:13 PM

According to MS history, Pythagoras, or at least his school, was the first person or institution in recorded history to believe the earth was spherical, so I don't know why Eric Dubay and many other flatists keep saying it was just some quirk or innovation made by Copernicus and his successors.
Probably to make round earth look more like the new kid on the block, and flat earth look like it's had a long history of support in western academia, which isn't the case.
While flat earth is the older theory, round earth has been the dominant theory regarding the geometry of the earth for over 2000 years, or for most western intellectual history, which in many ways began with Pythagoras and his philosophical and scientific contemporaries like Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus and so on.
While not all of the great natural philosophers believed in a round earth, increasingly it became the dominant theory after both Plato and Aristotle adopted and supported it.
The main proofs for many if not most round earthists, which probably includes 99% of the population of the world, believe in round earth is probably just because that's their teachers and Nasa told them to believe, and they never gave it a second thought.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any compelling, reasonable reasons to believe in a round earth, there seem to be, but the fact remains for good or ill, children have been brainwashed into accepting them without question.
I don't trust government, I think it's largely an instrument of the elite to sheer the population, and so I don't trust government/corporate science, either.
That's why I created this thread, I want to go back to a time before modern government, before pictures and videos from Nasa, many or all of which may be doctored.
Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?
Whatever proofs he had, or at least thought he had, or proofs we don't have to rely on Nasa for, they're proofs available to us all, people with modest means to verify for themselves.
So then what are all the reasons why Aristotle, not you, but Aristotle and his contemporaries, believed the earth to be round?
I want to go over each one very carefully, this is going to be the ultimate proof for or against for cynics and skeptics like me, not what government and its vested interests say.

May I most humbly ask you, where exactly Aristotle suggested the Earth may be round? From reading his "Organon", "Physics" and "Metaphysics" I remember he thought the spherical shape is perfect. That is why the Primary Engine should be spherical, for it must be perfect. However, the question remains, if the Engine belongs to the area of actually existing - or potentially existing. In the latter case, the Engine would be hidden from our eyes, yet govern the Universe.

Regarding the Earth, that might mean that some regions of flat Earth could belong to the area of potentially existing, thus being "not existing", from the usual point of view. Thus, Aristotle's theory may explain problems with FE map, for example, - and actually support FE model instead of RE.

So you're a flat earther and you're saying Aristotle didn't believe in round earth?

What do you make of this then?

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[21] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10).
The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle's work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, "one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the ... southern pole," both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31–35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

That's from wikipedia, so is whoever wrote this article on wiki misleading us?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 02, 2017, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:56:13 PM

According to MS history, Pythagoras, or at least his school, was the first person or institution in recorded history to believe the earth was spherical, so I don't know why Eric Dubay and many other flatists keep saying it was just some quirk or innovation made by Copernicus and his successors.
Probably to make round earth look more like the new kid on the block, and flat earth look like it's had a long history of support in western academia, which isn't the case.
While flat earth is the older theory, round earth has been the dominant theory regarding the geometry of the earth for over 2000 years, or for most western intellectual history, which in many ways began with Pythagoras and his philosophical and scientific contemporaries like Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus and so on.
While not all of the great natural philosophers believed in a round earth, increasingly it became the dominant theory after both Plato and Aristotle adopted and supported it.
The main proofs for many if not most round earthists, which probably includes 99% of the population of the world, believe in round earth is probably just because that's their teachers and Nasa told them to believe, and they never gave it a second thought.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any compelling, reasonable reasons to believe in a round earth, there seem to be, but the fact remains for good or ill, children have been brainwashed into accepting them without question.
I don't trust government, I think it's largely an instrument of the elite to sheer the population, and so I don't trust government/corporate science, either.
That's why I created this thread, I want to go back to a time before modern government, before pictures and videos from Nasa, many or all of which may be doctored.
Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?
Whatever proofs he had, or at least thought he had, or proofs we don't have to rely on Nasa for, they're proofs available to us all, people with modest means to verify for themselves.
So then what are all the reasons why Aristotle, not you, but Aristotle and his contemporaries, believed the earth to be round?
I want to go over each one very carefully, this is going to be the ultimate proof for or against for cynics and skeptics like me, not what government and its vested interests say.

May I most humbly ask you, where exactly Aristotle suggested the Earth may be round? From reading his "Organon", "Physics" and "Metaphysics" I remember he thought the spherical shape is perfect. That is why the Primary Engine should be spherical, for it must be perfect. However, the question remains, if the Engine belongs to the area of actually existing - or potentially existing. In the latter case, the Engine would be hidden from our eyes, yet govern the Universe.

Regarding the Earth, that might mean that some regions of flat Earth could belong to the area of potentially existing, thus being "not existing", from the usual point of view. Thus, Aristotle's theory may explain problems with FE map, for example, - and actually support FE model instead of RE.

So you're a flat earther and you're saying Aristotle didn't believe in round earth?

What do you make of this then?

Quote

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[21] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10).
The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle's work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, "one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the ... southern pole," both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31–35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

That's from wikipedia, so is whoever wrote this article on wiki misleading us?

Bro', since you were talking about Aristotle, I supposed you've read his works. Divine works, I'd say. What a delight!

Similarly, if you want to know who Mozart is, just listen to that:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
and/or that:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
and/or that:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If Wikipedia is your supreme source of knowledge, then... wow.
 

Aristotle may've'd more reasons for believing in round earth than this wiki article presents, but apparently these are at least some of them, so let's review the first -

Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Does this add up?
He's saying curvature is hiding the constellations, but maybe they're just too far away to see.
Ancient flat earth theory seems to think of the heavens in a strange way, like they ought to look the same no matter where the observer is situated, unless something on the ground is obscuring them.
Could there be another explanation why you can see different constellations as you travel north and south, west and east, besides either curvature on the one hand, or distance on the other?

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 02, 2017, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:56:13 PM

According to MS history, Pythagoras, or at least his school, was the first person or institution in recorded history to believe the earth was spherical, so I don't know why Eric Dubay and many other flatists keep saying it was just some quirk or innovation made by Copernicus and his successors.
Probably to make round earth look more like the new kid on the block, and flat earth look like it's had a long history of support in western academia, which isn't the case.
While flat earth is the older theory, round earth has been the dominant theory regarding the geometry of the earth for over 2000 years, or for most western intellectual history, which in many ways began with Pythagoras and his philosophical and scientific contemporaries like Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus and so on.
While not all of the great natural philosophers believed in a round earth, increasingly it became the dominant theory after both Plato and Aristotle adopted and supported it.
The main proofs for many if not most round earthists, which probably includes 99% of the population of the world, believe in round earth is probably just because that's their teachers and Nasa told them to believe, and they never gave it a second thought.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any compelling, reasonable reasons to believe in a round earth, there seem to be, but the fact remains for good or ill, children have been brainwashed into accepting them without question.
I don't trust government, I think it's largely an instrument of the elite to sheer the population, and so I don't trust government/corporate science, either.
That's why I created this thread, I want to go back to a time before modern government, before pictures and videos from Nasa, many or all of which may be doctored.
Why did Aristotle believe the earth was round?
Whatever proofs he had, or at least thought he had, or proofs we don't have to rely on Nasa for, they're proofs available to us all, people with modest means to verify for themselves.
So then what are all the reasons why Aristotle, not you, but Aristotle and his contemporaries, believed the earth to be round?
I want to go over each one very carefully, this is going to be the ultimate proof for or against for cynics and skeptics like me, not what government and its vested interests say.

May I most humbly ask you, where exactly Aristotle suggested the Earth may be round? From reading his "Organon", "Physics" and "Metaphysics" I remember he thought the spherical shape is perfect. That is why the Primary Engine should be spherical, for it must be perfect. However, the question remains, if the Engine belongs to the area of actually existing - or potentially existing. In the latter case, the Engine would be hidden from our eyes, yet govern the Universe.

Regarding the Earth, that might mean that some regions of flat Earth could belong to the area of potentially existing, thus being "not existing", from the usual point of view. Thus, Aristotle's theory may explain problems with FE map, for example, - and actually support FE model instead of RE.

So you're a flat earther and you're saying Aristotle didn't believe in round earth?

What do you make of this then?

Quote

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[21] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10).
The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle's work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, "one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the ... southern pole," both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31–35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

That's from wikipedia, so is whoever wrote this article on wiki misleading us?

Bro', since you were talking about Aristotle, I supposed you've read his works. Divine works, I'd say. What a delight!

Similarly, if you want to know who Mozart is, just listen to that:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
and/or that:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If Wikipedia is your supreme source of knowledge, then... wow.
 

So you're saying the article is misleading.
I'm going to look into this further.

Why didn't Aristotle consider distance as an alternative explanation for why some constellations can't be seen?

I guess it's because of the way the constellations appeared as they revealed themselves going south, they appeared in a circular sort of way, rather than the way clouds appear as they move towards you, in a flat, linear way.

I must say I find Aristotle's explanation more satisfying than modern flatists, given how the constellations reveal and conceal themselves, as you move towards/away from them and them you, they don't appear to grow/shrink much, if at all, they appear to go around the observer.

Why didn't Aristotle consider distance as an alternative explanation for why some constellations can't be seen?

Aristotle thought that the spherical shape is perfect. Since "celestial" is kinda synonymous to perfect, that's why celestial bodies, like the Sun, are round. That was his idea.

Why constellations are changing can be explained in many ways. For example, through the air we can see only what is closer than 300 km (in ideal conditions). In practice, this distance is even shorter. Anyway, thus, travelling on flat Earth, we would see different stars, some will "appear" and some will "disappear". There are many other opinions on this and many other matters.
 

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)

If we can trust wiki, Aristotle also said this.
I don't even know what he means, it sounds like he's just saying you can see the curve wherever you go, which isn't consistent with my experience or I think anyone's.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 09:09:42 PM

Why didn't Aristotle consider distance as an alternative explanation for why some constellations can't be seen?

Aristotle thought that the spherical shape is perfect. Since "celestial" is kinda synonymous to perfect, that's why celestial bodies, like the Sun, are round. That was his idea.

Why constellations are changing can be explained in many ways. For example, through the air we can see only what is closer than 300 km (in ideal conditions). In practice, this distance is even shorter. Anyway, thus, travelling on flat Earth, we would see different stars, some will "appear" and some will "disappear". There are many other opinions on this and many other matters.
 

The trouble with this explanation is, they don't appear/disappear like say clouds or objects on the landscape do, they appear/disappear like in a curved way, you know what I mean?

The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Next he says this.
I've heard some flatists retort that sometimes the both the moon and the sun are above the horizon when the moon is eclipsed, how do roundists respond to that?

Did any of these people physically exist or are they simply made up to push agendas?
If they existed, is there any physical proof of it?

Did Aristotle really believe it?

Did any of these people physically exist or are they simply made up to push agendas?
If they existed, is there any physical proof of it?

Good question, scholars tell us they did, because they have old books that told them they did.
Apparently these books appear so old, they may've been written by prior civilizations, like the ones responsible for the ruins in ancient Greece and Rome.
That being said, I've never seen the original copies of these books myself, nor would I have any means of authenticating them.
Perhaps it is all an elaborate rouse.
We may never know the real history.
Perhaps the dominant theory in ancient Greece and Rome was flat earth or concave earth or some other theory, but these natural philosophers were conveniently omitted from our history books, because they didn't support the agenda of early modern churches, states or secret societies like the Masons, Rosicrucians and so on, and instead we get Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.
We'll never know the true history of these ancient civilizations for sure.

Did Aristotle really believe it?

I don't know what Aristotle believed, I've been told he believed that.
I don't even know if Aristotle existed, perhaps he was fabricated by Masons in the 16th century.

So you're saying the article is misleading. ...

Well, there's been a few cases when Wikipedia articles were telling the opposite of truth. Some of them were discussed earlied. For example, the story about the lunar mission heat shield. What I've found myself and presented here: the shield prototype test (1965, published in 1968) failed at only about 3 km/s, the hole in the test spaceship was burned after about 90 seconds of flight - and there is no indications the heat shield existed and worked properly in 1969. Thus, the flight to the Moon was impossible even in the RE model, for those brave astronauts could not return back to Earth.

There also was a detailed discussion about the NASA's Apollo spaceship on the exhibition that allegedly flied to the Moon. Together with a certain virtuous RE'er we come to a solid conclusion that at least some parts of that spaceship never left Earth.

A bit aside, another example that I also found myself is Wikipedia article about Dr. Clark. Wikipedia creates an impression that this great scientist is a crook etc. In reality, however, Hulda Clark is right. The device she invented, described and presented as a gift to mankind does work. If you wanted to go deeper into the topic, here are my own videos how to assemble the zapper and how it works for diabetes. It's next to miracle: a perfectly normal blood glucose level in an hour or a couple of hours. IMHO, a revolution in biology and medicine, and Dr. Clark deserves a few Nobel prizes. She says cancer, Alzheimer, autism, infertility, asthma, AIDS etc. can be easily cured that way. BTW, now I have reliable data the device does cure asthma, liver and stomach poblems, as she described. Thus, her brilliant work could have saved millions of lives. Enjoy:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

However, "misleading" sounds as if Wikipedia contributors were doing that intentionally. While it is not impossible, I believe in most cases they just tried to enlighten and educate people and tell them what seems to be the best, from their point of view. Good intentions probably was their initial point, - but we know where the road paved with good intentions leads to...
 

 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 02, 2017, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 09:09:42 PM

Why didn't Aristotle consider distance as an alternative explanation for why some constellations can't be seen?

Aristotle thought that the spherical shape is perfect. Since "celestial" is kinda synonymous to perfect, that's why celestial bodies, like the Sun, are round. That was his idea.

Why constellations are changing can be explained in many ways. For example, through the air we can see only what is closer than 300 km (in ideal conditions). In practice, this distance is even shorter. Anyway, thus, travelling on flat Earth, we would see different stars, some will "appear" and some will "disappear". There are many other opinions on this and many other matters.
 

The trouble with this explanation is, they don't appear/disappear like say clouds or objects on the landscape do, they appear/disappear like in a curved way, you know what I mean?

Yep. It means you probably live in the U.S. of A., that blessed country where even the sky is such a beautiful, high, majestic dome. Here in Canada the sky is flat and low. No big deal, though I have no idea why.

 

Because he was a clever and educated person.

It's funny that some raise doubt about Aristotle but believe in an obscure jew...

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 02, 2017, 11:11:45 PM

Did any of these people physically exist or are they simply made up to push agendas?
If they existed, is there any physical proof of it?

Good question, scholars tell us they did, because they have old books that told them they did.
Apparently these books appear so old, they may've been written by prior civilizations, like the ones responsible for the ruins in ancient Greece and Rome.
That being said, I've never seen the original copies of these books myself, nor would I have any means of authenticating them.
Perhaps it is all an elaborate rouse.
We may never know the real history.
Perhaps the dominant theory in ancient Greece and Rome was flat earth or concave earth or some other theory, but these natural philosophers were conveniently omitted from our history books, because they didn't support the agenda of early modern churches, states or secret societies like the Masons, Rosicrucians and so on, and instead we get Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.
We'll never know the true history of these ancient civilizations for sure.

That's right.
We are certainly under a massive game playing dupe as well as hidden agenda's.

I don't think there's much doubt about that for those that can think.
The issue is, why are they hiding the truth?

Eratosthenes apparently done his Earth calculation that was apparently close to accurate as the so called boffins tell us and yet there are no records of any of this....none at all...so what are we relying on?
Chinese whispers or downright lies and stories?

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 09:03:16 PM

So you're saying the article is misleading. ...

Well, there's been a few cases when Wikipedia articles were telling the opposite of truth. Some of them were discussed earlied. For example, the story about the lunar mission heat shield. What I've found myself and presented here: the shield prototype test (1965, published in 1968) failed at only about 3 km/s, the hole in the test spaceship was burned after about 90 seconds of flight - and there is no indications the heat shield existed and worked properly in 1969. Thus, the flight to the Moon was impossible even in the RE model, for those brave astronauts could not return back to Earth.

There also was a detailed discussion about the NASA's Apollo spaceship on the exhibition that allegedly flied to the Moon. Together with a certain virtuous RE'er we come to a solid conclusion that at least some parts of that spaceship never left Earth.

A bit aside, another example that I also found myself is Wikipedia article about Dr. Clark. Wikipedia creates an impression that this great scientist is a crook etc. In reality, however, Hulda Clark is right. The device she invented, described and presented as a gift to mankind does work. If you wanted to go deeper into the topic, here are my own videos how to assemble the zapper and how it works for diabetes. It's next to miracle: a perfectly normal blood glucose level in an hour or a couple of hours. IMHO, a revolution in biology and medicine, and Dr. Clark deserves a few Nobel prizes. She says cancer, Alzheimer, autism, infertility, asthma, AIDS etc. can be easily cured that way. BTW, now I have reliable data the device does cure asthma, liver and stomach poblems, as she described. Thus, her brilliant work could have saved millions of lives. Enjoy:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

However, "misleading" sounds as if Wikipedia contributors were doing that intentionally. While it is not impossible, I believe in most cases they just tried to enlighten and educate people and tell them what seems to be the best, from their point of view. Good intentions probably was their initial point, - but we know where the road paved with good intentions leads to...
 

Thanks for sharing, gonna look into some of this stuff.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 09:39:55 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 02, 2017, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 09:09:42 PM

Why didn't Aristotle consider distance as an alternative explanation for why some constellations can't be seen?

Aristotle thought that the spherical shape is perfect. Since "celestial" is kinda synonymous to perfect, that's why celestial bodies, like the Sun, are round. That was his idea.

Why constellations are changing can be explained in many ways. For example, through the air we can see only what is closer than 300 km (in ideal conditions). In practice, this distance is even shorter. Anyway, thus, travelling on flat Earth, we would see different stars, some will "appear" and some will "disappear". There are many other opinions on this and many other matters.
 

The trouble with this explanation is, they don't appear/disappear like say clouds or objects on the landscape do, they appear/disappear like in a curved way, you know what I mean?

Yep. It means you probably live in the U.S. of A., that blessed country where even the sky is such a beautiful, high, majestic dome. Here in Canada the sky is flat and low. No big deal, though I have no idea why.

 

I live in Canada, but I'm pretty sure the heavens look domed everywhere.

Because he was a clever and educated person.

It's funny that some raise doubt about Aristotle but believe in an obscure jew...

Yea I know, it was Aristotle who said "it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it".
How many roundies can honestly say they agree with Aristotle?

I'm more inclined to believe in Aristotle's existence than Jesus.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 03, 2017, 06:41:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 02, 2017, 11:11:45 PM

Did any of these people physically exist or are they simply made up to push agendas?
If they existed, is there any physical proof of it?

Good question, scholars tell us they did, because they have old books that told them they did.
Apparently these books appear so old, they may've been written by prior civilizations, like the ones responsible for the ruins in ancient Greece and Rome.
That being said, I've never seen the original copies of these books myself, nor would I have any means of authenticating them.
Perhaps it is all an elaborate rouse.
We may never know the real history.
Perhaps the dominant theory in ancient Greece and Rome was flat earth or concave earth or some other theory, but these natural philosophers were conveniently omitted from our history books, because they didn't support the agenda of early modern churches, states or secret societies like the Masons, Rosicrucians and so on, and instead we get Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.
We'll never know the true history of these ancient civilizations for sure.

That's right.
We are certainly under a massive game playing dupe as well as hidden agenda's.

I don't think there's much doubt about that for those that can think.
The issue is, why are they hiding the truth?

Eratosthenes apparently done his Earth calculation that was apparently close to accurate as the so called boffins tell us and yet there are no records of any of this....none at all...so what are we relying on?
Chinese whispers or downright lies and stories?

Yea I'm not sure Eratosthenes proved anything, from what I remember about his experiment, it seemed riddled with assumption and hokum.

The earliest Greek philosophers of the 6th century believed in a flat earth. They had very little to do with observational science.

At the same time, Mesopotamian astronomers had most probably already figured out, that earth must be curved (not round), because they knew that in different latitudes different star constellations showed up, but that the distance between the stars did not change. That can best be explained by earth's surface being curved. We know at least that in Hellenistic times earth having the shape of a curved shield was known as the "Chaldaeic" (Mesopotamian) Model.

Who first came up with a spherical model we do not know. In the 5th century the best astronomers were still from Mesopotamia, not from Greece. Maybe it was one of them, maybe it was somebody in the Pythagorean school.

Plato's concept of a spherical earth was a little weird and derived from philosophical rather than scientific arguments.

Aristotle is the first known author who gives scientific arguments for the physical shape of the earth, like the star constellations changing with latitude, the behaviour of ships approaching the horizon and the earth shadow on the moon when an eclipse was happening. Most of his obsevations though can be explained by the Chaldaeic Model as well. By the way ancient papyri with fragments of Aristotle's books have been found in the sand of Egypt, so he is most likely not an invention of the 16th century.

At the same time other philosophers like Democrit favored the Chaldaeic shield model. Until the end of the Roman empire the Epicureans defended this model. All other schools prefered the Spherical model.

But since the 5th century every educated Greek knew, that the surface of earth must be curved and understood the arguments. The discussion was only, if it was a full sphere or only a segment of a sphere (=a curved shield).

Erathosthenes did not prove that earth is a sphere, he assumed that it is a sphere (rather than a segment of a sphere) and correctly calculated the radius.

The earliest Greek philosophers of the 6th century believed in a flat earth. They had very little to do with observational science.

At the same time, Mesopotamian astronomers had most probably already figured out, that earth must be curved (not round), because they knew that in different latitudes different star constellations showed up, but that the distance between the stars did not change. That can best be explained by earth's surface being curved. We know at least that in Hellenistic times earth having the shape of a curved shield was known as the "Chaldaeic" (Mesopotamian) Model.

Who first came up with a spherical model we do not know. In the 5th century the best astronomers were still from Mesopotamia, not from Greece. Maybe it was one of them, maybe it was somebody in the Pythagorean school.

Plato's concept of a spherical earth was a little weird and derived from philosophical rather than scientific arguments.

Aristotle is the first known author who gives scientific arguments for the physical shape of the earth, like the star constellations changing with latitude, the behaviour of ships approaching the horizon and the earth shadow on the moon when an eclipse was happening. Most of his obsevations though can also be explained by the Chaldaeic Model. By the way ancient papyri with fragments of Aristotle's books have been found in the sand of Egypt, so he is most likely not an invention of the 16th century.

At the same time other philosophers like Democrit favored the Chaldaeic shield model. Until the end of the Roman empire the Epicureans defended this model. All other schools prefered the Spherical model.

But since the 5th century every educated Greek knew, that the surface of earth must be curved and understood the arguments. The discussion was only, if it was a full sphere or only a segment of a sphere (=a curved shield).

Erathosthenes did not prove that earth is a sphere, he assumed that it is a sphere (rather than a segment of a sphere) and correctly calculated the radius.

Why do you think the Earth is a sphere, then?

What Eratosthenes did not prove 2000 years ago....is obviously...unprovable...because....something...

The earliest Greek philosophers of the 6th century believed in a flat earth. They had very little to do with observational science.

At the same time, Mesopotamian astronomers had most probably already figured out, that earth must be curved (not round), because they knew that in different latitudes different star constellations showed up, but that the distance between the stars did not change. That can best be explained by earth's surface being curved. We know at least that in Hellenistic times earth having the shape of a curved shield was known as the "Chaldaeic" (Mesopotamian) Model.

Who first came up with a spherical model we do not know. In the 5th century the best astronomers were still from Mesopotamia, not from Greece. Maybe it was one of them, maybe it was somebody in the Pythagorean school.

Plato's concept of a spherical earth was a little weird and derived from philosophical rather than scientific arguments.

Aristotle is the first known author who gives scientific arguments for the physical shape of the earth, like the star constellations changing with latitude, the behaviour of ships approaching the horizon and the earth shadow on the moon when an eclipse was happening. Most of his obsevations though can be explained by the Chaldaeic Model as well. By the way ancient papyri with fragments of Aristotle's books have been found in the sand of Egypt, so he is most likely not an invention of the 16th century.

At the same time other philosophers like Democrit favored the Chaldaeic shield model. Until the end of the Roman empire the Epicureans defended this model. All other schools prefered the Spherical model.

But since the 5th century every educated Greek knew, that the surface of earth must be curved and understood the arguments. The discussion was only, if it was a full sphere or only a segment of a sphere (=a curved shield).

Erathosthenes did not prove that earth is a sphere, he assumed that it is a sphere (rather than a segment of a sphere) and correctly calculated the radius.

Thanks for the history.
It's interesting how Epicurus, the supreme scientific materialist of all people, and his school believed the earth was flat, or like a shield, where as Plato the most spiritual of the philosophers thought it round.
I'd like to go over Aristotle's 'proofs' some more when I have more energy, and hear from both rounds and flats on them.

Enjoy. That's the foundation of our knowledge:

"... circular motion is necessarily primary. For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing."

"On the Heavens", by Aristotle