The round earth model is so damn accurate.

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

If I recall correctly it was known to be round in India and China with no connection to western belief on it.
But again, my point, is nothing else has been presented that works.

Edit: Ski, I started a thread in the general section asking about your model.  If you are so inclined I would like to see your thoughts on it.

Ski. It is interesting that you choose the Humber road bridge as an example. It is a suspension bridge, with a curved deck, so little use for measuring a curve. The span over water is only 1.9km, an online curvature calculator gives me 28cm of curve on the Earth. The towers are 1.4km apart so curvature is only 8cm. Mr Hill's reply is unsurprising.

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

Yes.

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

First your query, "Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?"
I don't know about strictly "Pythagorean influence", but no, I do not know of belief in the Globe originating outside Greece.
As far as I am aware belief in the Globe spread to the Greco-Roman region, then the Middle East, Arabia, Persia and India and finally to China in the 17th century AD.

Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.
Though records that far back are sparse, from what I understand, before Pythagoras the general belief among even the Greeks was that the earth was flat. Though because of the tendancy to ascribe these ideas to prominent people, Pythagoras may or may not have originated the conceot.

It is possible that belief in the Globe predates even Aristotle. The geographer Strabo

suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC.

Aristotle seems be one of the earliest to give reasons for his belief in a Globe, not all of which are logical. 
But, one little surprise is that Archimedes expressed so explicitly that:

In proposition 2 of the First Book of his treatise "On floating bodies," Archimedes demonstrates that "The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose centre is the same as that of the earth."

The whole point is that these people believed the earth a Globe for very logical reasons and not because of any assumptions.

So, are you aware of an instance belief in a sphere arrived because of an a priori assumption of sphericity?
I can't imagine where an a priori assumption of sphericity might have originated, unless from Plato who "thought spheres were  cool ".

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 03:57:50 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?

Wrong.  Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.

Quote from: Billy Mays on June 05, 2018, 09:30:30 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 03:57:50 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?

Wrong.  Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.

Not exactly. Everyone knew the earth was round long before Columbus.
Columbus just thought the earth was much smaller than it really is and thought he had reached India.
That's why we call those islands "The West Indies" and why we call Native Americans "Indians".
Real Indians live in Calcutta and New Delhi.

Quote from: Billy Mays on June 05, 2018, 09:30:30 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 03:57:50 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?

Wrong.  Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.

Uh, no. Columbus was attempting to sail to India, using his PRIOR knowledge on the Earth's roundness.

Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.

I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware.  Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.

Quote from: RAB

Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.

I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware.  Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.

Again, people adopted these ideas because they work. They explain what we see and can test. Flat earth does not.

There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.

It’s worth noting that ancient civilizations that thought the earth was flat believed the sun and moon orbited the flat earth so day and night occurred simultaneously everywhere. 

When dealing with only their local area, it was a reasonable assumption and they were able to chart the relative positions with some accuracy.

It didn’t cause half the problems as the spotlight sun idea to account for time zones.

There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.

Not really sure how that's relevant. People certainly did and do consider the functionality of it. It is accepted not because of some preconceived notions or brainwashing. It is accepted because it works and no one has put forth anything else that does.

I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware.  Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.

No, the only one trying to do that is you.

All the science shows Earth to be round.
In science, it doesn't matter where an idea comes from. If the evidence and arguments back it up, it will be accepted.

The fact that you continually appeal to the origin rather than the science shows a complete lack of a scientific mindset.

There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that modern science has.
Stop focusing on Pythagorean thought.

One person claiming Earth is round and not caring about the functionality of a round Earth doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round.
The fact that all the evidence points to Earth being round and the round model working so well does mean Earth is almost certainly round. (I would say certainly but some people would complain about technicalities).

Quote from: markjo on June 05, 2018, 09:51:43 AM

Quote from: Billy Mays on June 05, 2018, 09:30:30 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 03:57:50 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on June 04, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 12:10:55 PM

Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?

My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.

But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...

Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?

Wrong.  Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.

Not exactly. Everyone knew the earth was round long before Columbus.
Columbus just thought the earth was much smaller than it really is and thought he had reached India.
That's why we call those islands "The West Indies" and why we call Native Americans "Indians".
Real Indians live in Calcutta and New Delhi.

LIES!!!  Propaganda!!  FAKE NEWS!!!

Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.

Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.

I don't know who Charles Johnson is. I've never heard of that historian. But I'm pretty sure most historians agree the question was not the shape of the earth but its size. Can you give me a bit more information on your source?  I'm not finding anything.

Charles K. Johnson was the President of the Flat Earth Society from 1972 until 2001. His Columbus belief is not shared by many.

Charles K. Johnson was the President of the Flat Earth Society from 1972 until 2001. His Columbus belief is not shared by many.

Do you happen to know his source for that?  His just claiming it with no evidence doesn't really help your case.

I am merely relating an entertaining anecdote. I am not trying to convince anyone of its veracity.

I am merely relating an entertaining anecdote. I am not trying to convince anyone of its veracity.

Fair enough. But back to the point. Navigators and educated people knew the world was round. Columbus just thought it was smaller than it is.

Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.

If he tried that, that would likely increase the chance of mutiny as it would likely indicate to his crew he was severely divorced from reality.

There is the mail address mail@humberbridge.co.uk on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:

There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG

The same guy said Earth has a curvature. His reply is posted on your wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge

Thank you for your recent email.
   
    The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the
    centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
    inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of
    the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
   
    The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the
    apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
   
    Regards
   
    Peter Hill
    General Manager & Bridgemaster

Right then. So they "measured" a trapesium that exists "theoretically" by assuming a  priori the earth is in fact aglobe. ie "Our tower is X feet talk and Y feet long; how much difference in length would exist were the earth a globe"

Which is certainly a far cry from "why is the curvature of the earth taken to consideration when constructing bridges".

thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
    inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle.

The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured"

 "Measured"

I apologize for my English. I'm all looking at all these disputes and it's always two opposite points! Forgive me, but no one thought that there might be a third option - no it's not hollow or what the cellular land is called, this is the variant of the earth that originally describes the Torah, then the book of Enoch, and then the New Testament. And all together they talk about something other than just flat land! Is there anyone who researched this version of the device of our land?

I apologize for my English. I'm all looking at all these disputes and it's always two opposite points! Forgive me, but no one thought that there might be a third option - no it's not hollow or what the cellular land is called, this is the variant of the earth that originally describes the Torah, then the book of Enoch, and then the New Testament. And all together they talk about something other than just flat land! Is there anyone who researched this version of the device of our land?

The model presented in the book of Enoch has the sun, etc rising from and setting into portals on the eastern and western horizon respectively.  Hence the movement of these celestial bodies looks close to what we see in reality.

But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested.

We know for certain that the times the sun, moon, planets and stars rise and set vary as we move around the earth so some other model must be chosen.

The modern flat-earth tries to get around this problem by having these celestial bodies circling above the earth, so has to come up all sorts of ingenious hypotheses to explain simple sunrise and sunset.

You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible  refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.

You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible  refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.

I disagree with your premise that just because something in bible, written by men thousands of years ago isn't scientifically accurate then everything is a lie.
And to your other points, you can't see stars through the moon and we know exactly how the phases work.

You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible  refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.

What scriptures? Are you a literalist? What's your opinions on Enoch not being included in the Canon? So many questions

but then the question becomes - if [snip] it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale

That is a massive jump (although understandable).
The most important is that one book being wrong doesn't mean all religions are wrong or that there is no god.
All it means is that that book is wrong.
That could be because it was written by man instead of god, or god was deceiving people.
It could even just mean that that particular book out of the bible is wrong while the other books could still be correct.
But regardless, it does destroy the authority of anything that book is in.

But yes, all the religions of the world being a fairy tale is one possibility. (and all bar 1 must be wrong as they are mutually exclusive).
You shouldn't be using the books of a religion to try to evaluate reality. If anything, you should be using reality to evaluate the religion.

For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon

No one has been able to show that stars are visible through the moon.
Instead we have videos or pictures with dead pixels or markers placed over the top.

Then there are some satellites in orbit around Earth.

how the phases of the moon change in this case

Except for a RE, the phases of the moon is quite simple.
The sun lights up roughly half.
Whichever half phases the sun is bright, and as the moon orbits around us different sections face the sun.
This was used for one of the earlier measurements of the distance to the sun, using the angle between the sun and the half moon and the distance to the moon.