[Orbisect-64]

Ptolemy's books were written nearly two thousand years ago, they are well within public domain; and yet it doesn't appear to be downloadable for free.

I noticed that all the free versions that were available online were removed from the internet, and in 2013 a physicist uploaded "A Modern Almagest - An updated version of Ptolemy's Almagest" on the same sites where the original was removed. The "updated version" is filled with teachings contrary to Ptolemy's flat earth and geocentric views—the author has basically written his own science textbook and put Ptolemy's name on it.

It's pathetic that their ball earth doctrine can't stand in the face of accurate history, and that they have to cheat and plagiarize in order to make it hold water.

So does anyone have a PDF copy of this free domain book, where we can work out a download arrangement?

Frankly there should be a downloadable version of the Almagest on this site.


—

[garygreen]

Toomer's translation isn't free, but it can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Ptolemys-Almagest-Ptolemy/dp/0691002606

The original Greek copies can be found online for free, but those probably aren't especially useful if you don't speak ancient Greek: http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/HeibergAlmagestComplete.pdf 

[Rayzor]

There are plenty of copies in libraries,  and a few on-line on Toomers translation.    I will try and find a download link.


You are of course aware that Ptolemy thought the earth to be a globe?   Albeit the center of a geocentric universe.   

Not that I need to remind you, because I'm sure you already know,  that there is a one to one mathematical mapping from a ptolemaic geo centric solar system to the helio centric solar system.  From a mathematical point of view both systems are equivalent.   Just a shift in the origin of the co-ordinate system.   


Quoting:-

The cosmology of the Almagest includes five main points, each of which is the subject of a chapter in Book I. What follows is a close paraphrase of Ptolemy's own words from Toomer's translation.[4]

    The celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere.
    The Earth is a sphere.
    The Earth is at the center of the cosmos.
    The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.[5]
    The Earth does not move.





Quoting from Book 1

4. That Also the Earth, Taken as A Whole, is Sensibly Spherical

Now, that also the earth taken as a whole is sensibly spherical, we could most likely think out in this way. For again it is possible to see that the sun and moon and the other stars do not rise and set at the same time for every observer on the earth, but always earlier for those living towards the orient and later for those living towards the occident. For we find that the phenomena of eclipses taking place at the same time, especially those of the moon, are not recorded at the same hours for everyoneÑthat is, relatively to equal intervals of time from noon; but we always find later hours recorded for observers towards the orient than for those towards the occident. And since the differences in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances between the places, one would reasonably suppose the surface of the earth spherical, with the result that the general uniformity of curvature would assure every part's covering those following it proportionately. But this would not happen if the figure were any other, as can be seen from the following considerations.

For, if it were concave, the rising stars would appear first to people towards the occident; and if it were flat, the stars would rise and set for all people together and at the same time; and if it were a pyramid, a cube, or any other polygonal figure, they would again appear at the same time for all observers on the same straight line. But none of these things appears to happen. It is further clear that it could not be cylindrical with the curved surface turned to the risings and settings and the plane bases to the poles of the universe, which some think more plausible. For then never would any of the stars be always visible to any of the inhabitants of the curved surface, but either all the stars would both rise and set for observers or the same stars for an equal distance from either of the poles would always be invisible to all observers. Yet the more we advance towards the north pole, the more the southern stars are hidden and the northern stars appear. So it is clear that here the curvature of the earth covering parts uniformly in oblique directions proves its spherical form on every side. Again, whenever we sail towards mountains or any high places from whatever angle and in whatever direction, we see their bulk little by little increasing as if they were arising from the sea, whereas before they seemed submerged because of the curvature of the water's surface.

[Orbisect-64]

Thanks guys. I downloaded the books from garygreen's list. I can't read them, but some people I'm in contact with speak ancient and modern Greek.

I'll probably just end up plunking down the cash for Toomer's translation.

But thanks guys.

—

[Orbisect-64]

So it looks to me from what I've read that Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth—but he believed in a geocentric universe and an unmovable earth. I was under the impression by what someone said that he also believed in a flat earth.

I wonder what conclusions he would have come to regarding the shape of the earth if he was born before Aristotle's time.

Either way, he's a pretty strong voice in mathematics (his techniques are still used today) to be stating that earth is stationary, unmovable, and the center of the universe. You'd think more people would pay attention.

On a side note, I find it amusing, considering wikipedia is so pro-evolution and anti-christ (believe me I've had arguments with them over a few errors in the pages), that they use B.C. instead of B.C.E. I use B.C.E. just because most scholars accept that as the official—but it's just odd that wiki would use B.C. I also use C.E. in stead of A.D. But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.

(B.C. = Before Christ; B.C.E. = Before our Common Era; A.D. = in the year of our lord; C.E. Common Era)

[Pete Svarrior]

But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.

Well, it is beyond coincidence. In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus specifically designed his year numbering system to use what he thought to be Jesus's birth year¹ as the reference point. Yes, it's not a coincidence that a system that picks a certain date as its reference point has that date as its reference point.

Mind you, that's not "the zero year". Our year numbering system doesn't have a "zero year". It's 1BC followed by 1AD (BCE/CE if you'd prefer).

1 - He got it wrong by some 5-ish years, but you get the point.

[Orbisect-64]

But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.

Well, it is beyond coincidence. In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus specifically designed his year numbering system to use what he thought to be Jesus's birth year¹ as the reference point. Yes, it's not a coincidence that a system that picks a certain date as its reference point has that date as its reference point.

Mind you, that's not "the zero year". Our year numbering system doesn't have a "zero year". It's 1BC followed by 1AD (BCE/CE if you'd prefer).

1 - He got it wrong by some 5-ish years, but you get the point.

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year* . . .which just so happen to reach zero within a few years of Jesus' birth. After the zero year, we count upward.

(* the "zero year" is the year 1 BCE as the Greeks didn't have a zero in their number system. After 1 BCE they started with 1 CE.)


—

[markjo]

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year* . . .

Incorrect.  In ancient times, years counted up based on the time of a ruler's reign. 

[Orbisect-64]

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year* . . .

Incorrect.  In ancient times, years counted up based on the time of a ruler's reign.

I feel sorry for the undereducated and indoctrinated. Every time a shill opens his mouth, they all lose credibility, as it becomes painfully apparent they haven't a clue what they're talking about. But thank you, stupid, for making me get the dates for all these events. Now I can stick it in my files for quick retrieval the next time an idiot wants to argue.

I'm sorry, but the regression of dates point to the christ. In the words of Nickleson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" But you also can't change it.

Still want to disagree? Argue with history.



(? B.C.E — Ancient Sumeria & Babylon: Although dates are given for these two civilizations, achievements are attributed to Sumeria which clearly belong to pre-diluvian man. And regarding Babylon, it is not agreed upon what year Nimrod built his little tower—but who cares. The beginning of the civilization can only be approximated through Bible chronology, as some time after the flood of Noah—deal with it.)

All dates and quotes below come from various sources. Notice the dates (that means "numbers" for idiots) all go downward—blame history.



EGYPT

3150 B.C.E. — "A unified kingdom was founded by King Menes, leading to a series of dynasties that ruled Egypt for the next three millennia."

2700–2200 B.C.E. — "The first two ruling dynasties of a unified Egypt set the stage for the Old Kingdom period."

1650 B.C.E. — "The Hyksos invaders took over much of Lower Egypt around and founded a new capital at Avaris."

1550–1070 B.C.E. — "The New Kingdom began with the Eighteenth Dynasty, marking the rise of Egypt as an international power."



ASSYRIA TO GREECE

758 B.C.E. — "Assyria came to the fore as the dominant world power." (the date 758 is approximate).

632 B.C.E. — Babylon conquers Assyria.

539 B.C.E. — "Medo-Persia replaced the Babylonian Empire as dominant world power in 539 B.C.E."

? B.C.E. — "After defeating the Medo-Persian forces twice in Asia Minor, Alexander’s army pushed first to the south, and then to the east, completely conquering the Medo-Persian Empire."



ROME

323 B.C.E. — Rome becomes the dominant world power shortly after Alexander the Great is stricken dead with sickness at 32 years of age.

("The Romans overthrew their foreign rulers 500 B.C. and established the Roman republic, which lasted four centuries. ...As the majority realized its power and the aristocracy continued its rule, the people demanded (and received) privilege after privilege; the greatest were the election of plebeian tribunes (see tribune) and the codification (450 B.C.) of the Twelve Tables. ...The Samnites were subdued in the wars dated conventionally 343–341 B.C., 326–304 B.C., and 298–290 B.C. ...With Carthage humbled, the Roman republic turned its attention eastward. Philip V of Macedon was defeated after two campaigns (215–205 B.C., 200–197 B.C.), and Antiochus III of Syria was conquered at Magnesia (190 B.C.); eventually the defeat of Perseus (171–168 B.C.) made Macedonia a Roman province. Greece did not become a Roman province, but the brief opposition of the Achaean League was disposed of, and the Greeks became subject to Rome. Egypt acknowledged vassalship to the republic in 168 B.C." —Rome before Augustus © 2012)

63 B.C.E. — Cesar Augustus ruled Rome.

42 B.C.E. — Cesar Tiberius ruled Rome.

10 B.C.E. — Claudius ruled Rome.

2 B.C.E. — Jesus is born.



Dominant World Powers: 1) Egypt,  2) Assyria,  3) Babylon,  4) Medo-Persia,  5) Greece,  6) Rome,  7) Anglo-America... 

Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite."

Revelation 17:10: "And there are seven kings: Five have fallen, one is (Rome), and the other has not yet arrived; but when he does arrive, he must remain a short while."



P.S. Sorry SHILLS... "But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” —Revelation 21:8



—

[Pete Svarrior]

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year*

No, that numbering system was invented hundreds of years after 1BC.

[Orbisect-64]

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year*

No, that numbering system was invented hundreds of years after 1BC.

Are you talking about the Julian Calendar purposed in 46 B.C.E.?

"Julian and Gregorian Calendars. In the year 46 B.C.E., Julius Caesar issued a decree changing the Roman calendar from a lunar to a solar year. This Julian calendar, based on the calculations of the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, had 12 months of arbitrary length and a regular year of 365 days beginning on January 1. It also brought in the use of leap years by the addition of an extra day every four years, to compensate for the extra fraction of a day in the length of the tropical year, which has a little less than 365 1⁄4 days.

The Julian calendar year was actually a little more than 11 minutes and 14 seconds longer than the true solar year. Thus, by the 16th century a discrepancy of ten full days had accumulated. In 1582 C.E., Pope Gregory XIII introduced a slight revision of the Julian calendar, whereby the leap years every four years were retained but with the exception that only those century years with a number divisible by 400 were to be counted as leap years. By papal bull in 1582, ten days were to be omitted in that year, so that the day after October 4 became October 15. The Gregorian calendar is now in general use in most parts of the world. It is the basis for the historical dates used throughout this publication."

It's on record that when the Romans came to the year 1 B.C.E. they went straight to 1 C.E. because the ancient Romans had no zero. If the dates going backward is attributed to more recent times, then why did Rome face the dilemma of how to handle the 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E. changeover back then?

Sorry, you're arguing with history... And WHY? Likely for the very same reasons the world powers are hiding the flat earth and geocentric system - they dislike truth, and the God of truth - which makes such people no different than those hiding the flat earth, as they both seek to do as was written in Rom. 1:18-21: they are "suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way."

—

[Rayzor]

I feel sorry for the undereducated and indoctrinated. Every time a shill opens his mouth, they all lose credibility, as it becomes painfully apparent they haven't a clue what they're talking about. But thank you, stupid, for making me get the dates for all these events. Now I can stick it in my files for quick retrieval the next time an idiot wants to argue.

I'm sorry, but the regression of dates point to the christ. In the words of Nickleson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" But you also can't change it.

Still want to disagree? Argue with history.
<snip>

Could you just take a minute to clarify what you are saying,  are you suggesting that the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all used the same year numbering system that counted backwards towards zero?

Just a yes or no answer will suffice,  but if you want to elaborate on why you believe this, then that's fine.

[Orbisect-64]

I feel sorry for the undereducated and indoctrinated. Every time a shill opens his mouth, they all lose credibility, as it becomes painfully apparent they haven't a clue what they're talking about. But thank you, stupid, for making me get the dates for all these events. Now I can stick it in my files for quick retrieval the next time an idiot wants to argue.

I'm sorry, but the regression of dates point to the christ. In the words of Nickleson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" But you also can't change it.

Still want to disagree? Argue with history.
<snip>

Could you just take a minute to clarify what you are saying,  are you suggesting that the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all used the same year numbering system that counted backwards towards zero?

Just a yes or no answer will suffice,  but if you want to elaborate on why you believe this, then that's fine.

I realize we use the Gregorian calendar today, which was proposed by a Pope—but as is recorded in history, it was the Romans who dealt with the question of what to do when reaching the year 1 B.C.E.

I've been studying ancient history most of my life, and nowhere have I ever run into an issue where I had to convert the years from one old system to our modern system.

According to wikipedia (the most reliable source in the world, lol) under the heading of Year Numbering: "Julius Caesar did not change the beginning of either the consular year or the calendar year." No mention is made about the numbering system actually changing over, or of the year 1. And this considering wikipedia is run mostly by atheists (believe me I had to fight tooth and nail to have some history fixed on a few pages)—if wikipedia could prove such claims, they would; but they don't. The wiki-pages on the Julian calendar, the Gregorian calendar, and the page on "calendar" mention nothing of the modern claim that there were different years before the Gregorian system—and I did check other sources, and I've looked into this before.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 C.E., and yet we have records before that time giving dates counting from 1 C.E. and upward. If the calendar used up until the Gregorian calendar was the Julian, and that never changed in all those years, then this answers, yes, the dates must have counted from 1 C.E. by decree of Rome - which rulers which did not believe in Jesus back around the 1st century. In fact recall the persecution of the Christians during the time of the apostles. It's believed that Paul was likely put to death in the arenas - probably burned on a stake to serve as nighttime illumination for their sports, as was the custom with Christians as they refused to fight. And it was Nero who was reported to have burned Rome and blamed the Christians in 64 C.E. Hence it would be unreasonable to conclude that they changed the years to coincide with Jesus' birth, and that system continued up until 1582 C.E.

Further, it would have made no sense for Rome to have started over again from 1 if they already had a count upward to their time—it would have made more sense to continue counting upward, and in doing so they would never have had to consider what to do when reaching the year 1 B.C.E.

I've read every source I can, and I find no citations from of old which testify to the very modern claim that the years were changed after Jesus's death by Christians. A lot of people are saying it, but there's no support beyond their claims. It seems to me that they don't like the implications, and are passing off "new truths" as historic truth—just like heliocentricism and globe earth.

If someone can find me some old historic books from between the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar that give a different year numbering system, I'll gladly change my views to reflect history—but believe me, I've looked. And the same goes with the Julian calendar before B.C.E., find me old historical sources (documents) from around the period with some other year, and I'll change my view.

In this matter, if it is true that the years did count downward, as appears to be the case, then I point to Acts 1:7. Although it's in relation to knowing the time of the end, in principle it may extend farther in scope. There it says: "He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.""

It appears that although man has been allowed to change historical events and alter truth, God has set our perception of time itself in his own jurisdiction, which means that even if man tried, he could not force it to change from what he wants.


—

[Rayzor]

Interesting ideas..    a bit more research would be a good thing.

The conventional wisdom and research says that  Pope John 1,  was responsible for the Christian Calendar,   the work being done by Dionysius Exiguus.  Around 525 CE,   It was Dionysius Exiguus who started using Anno Domino  AD

The Romans used other means of numbering years, often using,  AUC,  which is numbering years from the founding of Rome, also other year numbering based on Consuls.   

[Orbisect-64]

Interesting ideas..    a bit more research would be a good thing.

The conventional wisdom and research says that  Pope John 1,  was responsible for the Christian Calendar,   the work being done by Dionysius Exiguus.  Around 525 CE,   It was Dionysius Exiguus who started using Anno Domino  AD

The Romans used other means of numbering years, often using,  AUC,  which is numbering years from the founding of Rome, also other year numbering based on Consuls.

Thanks Rayzor. I'll look into it more. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I'm not afraid to change if I am. I can't tell you how many ideas I've had to change over the years—including the ball earth model, lol. But you know, on a flat earth website I think we're at that point where we need solid proof of things before changing them, right? And people just stating things as a matter of fact is not in itself, proof.

—