I have been a believer of flat earth, until recently. Please take a gander at this video; (Mirror) Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality) by a "proper Surveyor" (very well put together). He is saying that the formula for the curvature is not entirely correct (allegedly), take a look for yourselves;That does look like what I posted.
(removed video)
I would love to hear your comments on this video please, either way and can we try and be civil with each other, as we all, only want the truth!
Thanks
Freeman
The Geodetic Surveyor Jesse Kozlowski made this video describing just what a Geodetic Surveyor does and how in the end these surveyors have effectively "measured the earth" and shown that it simply cannot be a flat plane.
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm).
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm).Since when is ENaG the authority on surveying? ???
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm).
Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago?
If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.
We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.Well you should be interested to know that Rowbotham is evidently mistaken on the topic of spherical excess.
We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.Well you should be interested to know that Rowbotham is evidently mistaken on the topic of spherical excess.
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
What Tom Bishop and all the other FEers simply cannot comprehend is that Geodetic Surveyors do a lot more than measure "spherical excess"! The main task of Geodetic Surveyors is simply to measure large areas of land - countries and continents. It is these measurements that prove the earth certainly does not conform to the map shown in the Wiki. In this map the spacing between the meridians of longitude continually increase from zero at the North Pole to a maximum at "the Rim". Quote from: the Wiki EarthI am preparing a much more detailed post on this topic but for now I have some values of the width of a degree taken from old (in the 1800s) high resolution maps of Australia and the USA.
| (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png) The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth. |
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]
Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.
Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?
So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.
to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]
Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.
Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?
So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.
I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.
I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a thing or 6
I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.
I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.
In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST. And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.
So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.Quoteto criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.
If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?
If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.
On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?
Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.QuoteThat person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.
Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]
Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.
Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?
So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.
I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.
I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a thing or 6
I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.
I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.
In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST. And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.
So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.Quoteto criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.
If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?
If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.
On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?
Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.QuoteThat person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.
Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.
Yes, I've watched.
"In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe."
You don't need to know what the shape of Earth is to learn navigation. You only need a coordinate system.
If someone created a coordinate system that could work on a flat earth map, in order to you to fulfill your tasks as a professional, would you believe the Earth is flat?
Look, I don't know of what maths you're talking. If you want to show an example of some contradiction you've found, maybe start a new thread and discuss it. I'm curious.
No doubt more people here know good math and will help you (since math is very important to you).
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.
I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded by an ice wall and covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]
Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.
Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?
So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.
I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.
I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a thing or 6
I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.
I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.
In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST. And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.
So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.Quoteto criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.
If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?
If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.
On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?
Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.QuoteThat person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.
Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.
Yes, I've watched.
"In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe."
You don't need to know what the shape of Earth is to learn navigation. You only need a coordinate system.
If someone created a coordinate system that could work on a flat earth map, in order to you to fulfill your tasks as a professional, would you believe the Earth is flat?
Look, I don't know of what maths you're talking. If you want to show an example of some contradiction you've found, maybe start a new thread and discuss it. I'm curious.
No doubt more people here know good math and will help you (since math is very important to you).
Navigation is NOT a chessboard;
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2009/August/200908_Features_Dead_Reckoning.html
Here at home, the variation is 2 degrees which will get you lost but it will take time. In southern California the Variation is 18 degrees. Gets you lost in a HURRY.
After reading the link it should be clear that using this on a FE model the best thing about it is you're LOST. If your attempt it over a large body of water I pray you can swim and the water is warm.
If after reading the link and you still don't get it, find a local flight school and have the instructor walk you though it. FET nav is not compatible with the real world
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.
IN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.
A terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.
I doubt anyone who read Rowbotham's book would mistake him for an authority.
I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.Come now. As an author, you should know that truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.Come now. As an author, you should know that truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.Quote from: unknown to me at leastIN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.QuoteA terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.Quote from: unknown to me at leastIN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.QuoteA terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
Evaluate your sources and provide evidence of what you're telling.
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.Quote from: unknown to me at leastIN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.QuoteA terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
Evaluate your sources and provide evidence of what you're telling.
Why won't you point out what is wrong with his post? Wait, you know there is nothing wrong and just want to side track him for a while
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.Quote from: unknown to me at leastIN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.QuoteA terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
Evaluate your sources and provide evidence of what you're telling.
Why won't you point out what is wrong with his post? Wait, you know there is nothing wrong and just want to side track him for a while
He quoted a poem of unknown origin; there is probably hundreds of versions of it on the Internet. Besides, it doesn't state Colombus thought the Earth was round. Secondly, he linked Wikipedia. Everyone knows how Wikipedia works (not against it, but you need further research to state the information in there). Nevertheless I took a look and coudn't find the sentence "[Columbus] knew the earth was a sphere". Wasn't that a direct quotation? "Sphere" has 20 matches, no one with that quote. Couldn't find anything implying Columbus's ideas about Earth shape.
When I say "evaluate your sources", I really mean it. Provide something you've really searched about. Have you ever read some valid source, such as some document produced at the time, that suggests Columbus's thoughts about Earth's shape? What is most told is that Columbus (not him himself) corrected an ancient Greek calculus estimating the size of a round Earth. So, in the first place, they knew that that calculus wasn't accurate. That's all. According to my readings, I can only assume for sure that some educated people believed Earth roundness among Portuguese scholars. I really don't have the means to know whether Columbus shared or not this view.
It's up to you to bring evidence.
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.
I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.Quote from: unknown to me at leastIN 1492And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.QuoteA terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_astronomy)
Evaluate your sources and provide evidence of what you're telling.
Why won't you point out what is wrong with his post? Wait, you know there is nothing wrong and just want to side track him for a while
He quoted a poem of unknown origin; there is probably hundreds of versions of it on the Internet. Besides, it doesn't state Colombus thought the Earth was round. Secondly, he linked Wikipedia. Everyone knows how Wikipedia works (not against it, but you need further research to state the information in there). Nevertheless I took a look and coudn't find the sentence "[Columbus] knew the earth was a sphere". Wasn't that a direct quotation? "Sphere" has 20 matches, no one with that quote. Couldn't find anything implying Columbus's ideas about Earth shape.
When I say "evaluate your sources", I really mean it. Provide something you've really searched about. Have you ever read some valid source, such as some document produced at the time, that suggests Columbus's thoughts about Earth's shape? What is most told is that Columbus (not him himself) corrected an ancient Greek calculus estimating the size of a round Earth. So, in the first place, they knew that that calculus wasn't accurate. That's all. According to my readings, I can only assume for sure that some educated people believed Earth roundness among Portuguese scholars. I really don't have the means to know whether Columbus shared or not this view.
It's up to you to bring evidence.
Here is a link, not that you will accept it. You like playing semantics except when it is used by you against RE
http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html
Nothing in the article implies that Columbus knew the Earth was round, or provide me a direct quotation, please.
It means, shock of shocks, what it says. Columbus knew the Earth was round, but he didn't have the correct measurements.
You really don't have a useful grasp of the meaning of English words do you?
Nothing in the article implies that Columbus knew the Earth was round, or provide me a direct quotation, please.
It was well established that the earth is round at this time. It's very unlikely that a man such as Columbus would think otherwise.
It means, shock of shocks, what it says. Columbus knew the Earth was round, but he didn't have the correct measurements.
You really don't have a useful grasp of the meaning of English words do you?
Provide evidence (3). You have failed so far. Yes, my English is to be put in question now. lol
It means, shock of shocks, what it says. Columbus knew the Earth was round, but he didn't have the correct measurements.
You really don't have a useful grasp of the meaning of English words do you?
Provide evidence (3). You have failed so far. Yes, my English is to be put in question now. lol
It is in the link I provided above.
I wrote it as slowly as I could so you could follow what I said
It's so difficult to make a point rather than copy and paste a random link and say "look, it is here. Dont you read?" lol Provide direct quotations oh wait.. you cant.
It's so difficult to make a point rather than copy and paste a random link and say "look, it is here. Dont you read?" lol Provide direct quotations oh wait.. you cant.
You asked him to PROVIDE EVIDENCE (your words). In most people's understanding of that request, simply telling you something would not suffice: one needs to link to an authoritative source. If I told you that the people in my town lived to be a thousand years old, and you said "Provide Evidence", I would assume you wanted newspaper articles, census data, birth and death certificates, and the like, not merely me saying it again with different words.
In any case, let's do BOTH. I'll give you the link to an article (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations) which you could read, and I suppose I can read the relevant parts to you: "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?...Columbus preferred the values given by the medieval Persian geographer Alfraganus)...That was Columbus’s first error, which he compounded with a second: he assumed that the Persian was using the 4 856-foot Roman mile; in fact, Alfraganus meant the 7 091-foot Arabic mile...Taken together, the two miscalculations effectively reduced the planetary waistline to 16,305 nautical miles, down from the actual 21,600 or so, an error of 25 percent...And then there was the third error...Through a complicated chain of reasoning that mixed Ptolemy, Marinus of Tyre, and Marco Polo with some “corrections” of his own, Columbus calculated that he would find Japan at 85º west longitude (rather than 140° east)—moving it more than 8,000 miles closer to Cape St. Vincent."
It's so difficult to make a point rather than copy and paste a random link and say "look, it is here. Dont you read?" lol Provide direct quotations oh wait.. you cant.
You asked him to PROVIDE EVIDENCE (your words). In most people's understanding of that request, simply telling you something would not suffice: one needs to link to an authoritative source. If I told you that the people in my town lived to be a thousand years old, and you said "Provide Evidence", I would assume you wanted newspaper articles, census data, birth and death certificates, and the like, not merely me saying it again with different words.
In any case, let's do BOTH. I'll give you the link to an article (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations) which you could read, and I suppose I can read the relevant parts to you: "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?...Columbus preferred the values given by the medieval Persian geographer Alfraganus)...That was Columbus’s first error, which he compounded with a second: he assumed that the Persian was using the 4 856-foot Roman mile; in fact, Alfraganus meant the 7 091-foot Arabic mile...Taken together, the two miscalculations effectively reduced the planetary waistline to 16,305 nautical miles, down from the actual 21,600 or so, an error of 25 percent...And then there was the third error...Through a complicated chain of reasoning that mixed Ptolemy, Marinus of Tyre, and Marco Polo with some “corrections” of his own, Columbus calculated that he would find Japan at 85º west longitude (rather than 140° east)—moving it more than 8,000 miles closer to Cape St. Vincent."
I read the article. The author makes a lot of assumptions and don't back any one of them. He even made a map on his own as you can see the reference at the end lol.
Here is his background as a map maker: IEEE Spectrum “Tech Talk” contributor Douglas McCormick is a New York City-based freelance writer and communications consultant specializing in technology and life science. He has been editor or editorial director of such publications as PM360 (for healthcare marketers), BioTechniques (for molecular biology researchers), Pharmaceutical Technology, and Nature Publishing Company’s Bio/Technology (now called Nature Biotechnology). He was founder, CEO, and CTO of Physician Verification Services (an internet based healthcare marketing start-up) and, earlier, corporate director of scientific communications at SmithKline Beecham and computer science editor at Hayden Book Company.
For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself? And I'd like to know where he took this whole statement from (which page on the book he reviewed and from where the original author took it from). There are also other wild guesses. Not worth mentioning though.
Wild guesses. That sums up FE perfectly
How does it change the fact that you are not able to provide credible sources? I recommend you consult Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus yourself, instead of reading the interpretation of some random author who is not from the field and haven't learned how to provide quotations for his review.
Wild guesses. That sums up FE perfectly
How does it change the fact that you are not able to provide credible sources? I recommend you consult Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus yourself, instead of reading the interpretation of some random author who is not from the field and haven't learned how to provide quotations for his review.
The source IS creditable. You just don't like the results. As proof here is another link;
http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus
I'm betting you find some minor fault with this too.
Wild guesses. That sums up FE perfectly
How does it change the fact that you are not able to provide credible sources? I recommend you consult Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus yourself, instead of reading the interpretation of some random author who is not from the field and haven't learned how to provide quotations for his review.
The source IS creditable. You just don't like the results. As proof here is another link;
http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus
I'm betting you find some minor fault with this too.
Minor fault like reviewing a book without quoting the pages you've consulted? You need to follow some rules to write something. How difficult is to grasp that?
Look, stop looking for science blogs/sites. Do you think History.com is the final authority? It's the same commom sense. I ask you to go after the first source you provided in order to be coherent. But somehow you decided to change the line again. Stop playing a fool.
For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citationsI think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citationsI think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
NASA invented the Globe idea,
NASA first said that the earth was about 7,900 miles in diameter,
NASA invented the the 8" per mile2 "formula" for "curvature",
NASA invented Gravitation.
It has come as a bit too much of a shock to find that Globes were actually used for (rough) navigation centuries ago.
And of course, that usual flat earth response is(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/Y/J/d/G/O/N/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.svg)
NASA is the root of all evil. Nothing but a den of sinners, liars, satanists and satan worshippers....amongst other things of the same unspeakable nature.
You missed a few things.
And "indoctrination" is only a flat earth bad word for round earthers.
For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied. If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site. Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500 (http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/Late_Medieval.html). I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe. It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is. Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.
(http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/258_Behaim_Globe_files/droppedImage_4.png)
Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citationsI think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
NASA invented the Globe idea,
NASA first said that the earth was about 7,900 miles in diameter,
NASA invented the the 8" per mile2 "formula" for "curvature",
NASA invented Gravitation.
It has come as a bit too much of a shock to find that Globes were actually used for (rough) navigation centuries ago.
And of course, that usual flat earth response is(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/Y/J/d/G/O/N/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.svg)
For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied. If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site. Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500 (http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/Late_Medieval.html). I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe. It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is. Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.
(http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/258_Behaim_Globe_files/droppedImage_4.png)
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied. If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site. Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500 (http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/Late_Medieval.html). I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe. It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is. Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.
(http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/258_Behaim_Globe_files/droppedImage_4.png)
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?
Son, you're RBSC
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied. If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site. Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500 (http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/Late_Medieval.html). I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe. It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is. Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.
(http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/258_Behaim_Globe_files/droppedImage_4.png)
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?
Son, you're RBSC
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?
Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied. If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site. Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500 (http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/Late_Medieval.html). I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe. It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is. Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.
(http://cartographic-images.net/Cartographic_Images/258_Behaim_Globe_files/droppedImage_4.png)
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?
Son, you're RBSC
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.
Thank you for admitting that Columbus knew the world is a globe.
I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.
What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?
Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.
What did I want to prove? I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat. After reading your comment, I did some more digging. I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history, produced by the Persian astronomer Jamal al-Din and presented to Kublai Khan in Beijing, all the way back in 1276. (This is why I called the Behaim Globe the "oldest" instead of the "first" globe) One such reference, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, vol 3 is cited by David Woodward in his work The Image of the Spherical Earth (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1567135?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents), MIT Press, 1989. The link takes you to a registration-required site, but it's free. The work is a brief history of globe maps, worth a quick read.
On page 9 we find this: "From the Christian Middle Ages we have direct literary allusions to the idea that the earth was viewed as spherical, but no allusions to the making of a globe before the 15th century. Why is this? ... To the scholars who knew it was a sphere, and cared enough to write about it as such, the construction of a globe might have been an unnecessary elaboration" So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.
On page 12 there is a quote from a letter by the cartographer Toscanelli, whose globe ideas were the ones rejected by the royal navigators of Portugal and Spain. We know Columbus had opportunity to read this letter, as it appear in his personally owned copy of the flamboyantly named Historia Rerum Ubique Gestarum ("History of all things and all deeds"), a compendium of the scientific and geographical knowledge of the time published in 1477 by Cardinal Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II): "although I know from my own knowledge that the world can be shown as it is in the form of a sphere, I have determined to show the same route by a chart similar to those which are made for navigation. The straight lines which are shown lengthwise on the said chart show the distance from west to east, the others which are across show the distance from north to south"
So that's what I wanted to prove. Instead, however, what I seem to have actually proven is that flat earthers are hypocrites. I cannot count the number of times I have seen a variation on the theme "sailors don't navigate by globes, ha ha, they navigate by flat paper charts, because the world is flat and they know it" I now present a globe, of the type available to Columbus (without suggesting he actually saw it) and based upon the data used by Columbus to plan his voyage. In response, did you acknowledge that the same logic that leads you to say "flat maps, because someone believes the earth is flat" should also apply to "globe map, because someone believed the earth was round"? No, you didn't, you jumped immediately to "it doesn't mean...that 'they' clearly thought so" How could it mean anything else??? Also of note is your statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly: "The coordinate system they used applied to this format." Yes, yes it did, and why do you suppose that is? If people did not think the world was a globe, what would possibly be the point of creating a coordinate system that fits on a globe for use navigating upon its surface?
Please note, I am not even asking you to come all the way to "globe map, because the earth IS A GLOBE". I just want you to acknowledge that "globe map, because somebody THOUGHT IT WAS."
What did I want to prove? I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.It is obvious, yes. I took pains to demonstrate it so I could make the link to the idea (which I guess needs to be stated outright) that since by this point in human history the round earth was the commonly held view among the educated, there is every reason to think Columbus shared this view, and no reason to think he did not. Among the other, non-circumstantial reasons is the fact that his own personal collection of manuscripts included materials of the round earth persuasion, while apparently (as far as I can tell) containing nothing of the flat earth persuasion.
That's pretty obvious. My complaint is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.
I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.This belonged with a train of thought which I forgot to flesh out. You made a comment about the long preparation required before a voyage of the types undertaken by Columbus. I was trying to demonstrate that globe maps were not new, but I see that you already knew that, good. This was meant to support the idea that while it is true that this particular globe map was produced too late for Columbus to have used it during his planning stages, there might have been other globe maps available to him.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?
To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...This is a different understanding of the original material than I reached, probably due to the things I omitted for the sake of both brevity and amity. Abandoning brevity, let's get into it: Taken in the larger context, "the scholars who knew" are not being compared against other scholars who had other ideas; "the scholars who knew" are being contrasted with the uneducated classes, the non-scholars, who did not know. In fact the author states outright that if the uneducated thought about the earth's shape at all they would likely have thought as you do: it LOOKS flat, it must BE flat. This was another reason given for not producing globe maps, to avoid causing fear or anger in the uneducated. Which leads me to the "amity" reason for not including this. I did not want to introduce the word "uneducated" to the discussion, out of concern that it would be taken as a pejorative aimed at modern participants in this group. That wot my intent. The word is simply an accurate description of the state of the world then. Very few people got "educated" at a school in the manner common today. This is not to say they were stupid, just that they had not recieved an education.
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.
So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.Maybe, but it supports the difference between my contention that scholars all agreed on a round earth, and your suggestion that they did not agree. If there were some who believed and some who did not, I think it likely that the believers would have produced globe maps for the purpose of trying to win the debate. Much as we round earthers here try to do. (Saying nothing about whether it would have been any less futile for them than we're finding it to be, of course)
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.
I recognize people thought of a round globe. My point is not everyone at medieval times - where translations and documents were not easily reacheable, and where information travelled very slowly, not everyone behind Portuguese nagivations followed this Globe logic, because you don't need this concept to nagivate.As acknowledged above, not everyone was a round-earther then. I think you are wrong about those who navigated far away, though. Perhaps if you sailed only near the coast, or within the Mediterranean, sure; on a small scale a flat earth map is close enough and any time you came ashore somewhere you didn't expect, that could easily be blamed on wind or current or human error. But if you were looking for a westward route to Cathay, you were in the round earth camp. For that matter, you only thought such a thing possible BECAUSE of the round earth idea. Without a round earth, why should a voyage west on flat earth ever take you to a point you could reach by going east? On a flat earth (as a person of that time would picture it) a straight line going west should go straight west for ever, perhaps to new and exotic lands, but never ending up somehow behind yourself. Why should a straight line going west actually be an imperceptibly curved line arcing ever so slightly to the right until it comes back around on itself? We only have that model now because people who knew the world was round actually went out and sailed around it, a feat which now must be explained by flat earthers.
When I say "clearly stated" is not to bother you. I don't believe in words dropped on forums and history.com. My bad I guess?So why are you here, in a forum, dropping words?
What did I want to prove? I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.It is obvious, yes. I took pains to demonstrate it so I could make the link to the idea (which I guess needs to be stated outright) that since by this point in human history the round earth was the commonly held view among the educated, there is every reason to think Columbus shared this view, and no reason to think he did not. Among the other, non-circumstantial reasons is the fact that his own personal collection of manuscripts included materials of the round earth persuasion, while apparently (as far as I can tell) containing nothing of the flat earth persuasion.
That's pretty obvious. My complaint is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.This belonged with a train of thought which I forgot to flesh out. You made a comment about the long preparation required before a voyage of the types undertaken by Columbus. I was trying to demonstrate that globe maps were not new, but I see that you already knew that, good. This was meant to support the idea that while it is true that this particular globe map was produced too late for Columbus to have used it during his planning stages, there might have been other globe maps available to him.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...This is a different understanding of the original material than I reached, probably due to the things I omitted for the sake of both brevity and amity. Abandoning brevity, let's get into it: Taken in the larger context, "the scholars who knew" are not being compared against other scholars who had other ideas; "the scholars who knew" are being contrasted with the uneducated classes, the non-scholars, who did not know. In fact the author states outright that if the uneducated thought about the earth's shape at all they would likely have thought as you do: it LOOKS flat, it must BE flat. This was another reason given for not producing globe maps, to avoid causing fear or anger in the uneducated. Which leads me to the "amity" reason for not including this. I did not want to introduce the word "uneducated" to the discussion, out of concern that it would be taken as a pejorative aimed at modern participants in this group. That wot my intent. The word is simply an accurate description of the state of the world then. Very few people got "educated" at a school in the manner common today. This is not to say they were stupid, just that they had not recieved an education.
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.Maybe, but it supports the difference between my contention that scholars all agreed on a round earth, and your suggestion that they did not agree. If there were some who believed and some who did not, I think it likely that the believers would have produced globe maps for the purpose of trying to win the debate. Much as we round earthers here try to do. (Saying nothing about whether it would have been any less futile for them than we're finding it to be, of course)
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.I recognize people thought of a round globe. My point is not everyone at medieval times - where translations and documents were not easily reacheable, and where information travelled very slowly, not everyone behind Portuguese nagivations followed this Globe logic, because you don't need this concept to nagivate.As acknowledged above, not everyone was a round-earther then. I think you are wrong about those who navigated far away, though. Perhaps if you sailed only near the coast, or within the Mediterranean, sure; on a small scale a flat earth map is close enough and any time you came ashore somewhere you didn't expect, that could easily be blamed on wind or current or human error. But if you were looking for a westward route to Cathay, you were in the round earth camp. For that matter, you only thought such a thing possible BECAUSE of the round earth idea. Without a round earth, why should a voyage west on flat earth ever take you to a point you could reach by going east? On a flat earth (as a person of that time would picture it) a straight line going west should go straight west for ever, perhaps to new and exotic lands, but never ending up somehow behind yourself. Why should a straight line going west actually be an imperceptibly curved line arcing ever so slightly to the right until it comes back around on itself? We only have that model now because people who knew the world was round actually went out and sailed around it, a feat which now must be explained by flat earthers.When I say "clearly stated" is not to bother you. I don't believe in words dropped on forums and history.com. My bad I guess?So why are you here, in a forum, dropping words?
You can go east and end west with a flat earth concept. If you don't know that, go to faq.
First and foremost, Columbus was not the leading sailor of his time, by a long shot. He was also by all accounts a bastard, slave owner, and exploiter of native peoples.All true. Most of the leading sailors of his time believed the “bigger ball” version of the globe, which put India much further away and more or less out of reach (or at least not worth the effort, since you could get there by land already). Indeed, had the Americas NOT been where they are, Columbus and his men would likely never have made it.
But I also recall the point of his voyage of sailing West was apparently to find a faster route to India. Hence why America was called the "West Indies" and Native Americans called Indians still to this day.That is my understanding as well.
That implies his belief of the Earth to be a globe.I made this one BIG to draw Bzz's attention to it. As per the next comment, it doesn't prove that the belief was correct, it merely demonstrates that he held the belief.
This doesn't change the fact that circumnavigation is possible on flat earth model, though. His landing in the Americas also didn't verify that the earth was a Globe either, just that he "found" more land to the West of Spain. That discovery couldn't have come any sooner than the full colonization of America from "sea to shining sea," a relatively recent accomplishment.This all holds together logically too.
going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west foreverYour definition of "west" is bizarre, as it seems to imply a single, static direction. Your idea of "west" seems to suggest that, on a round Earth, you would have to lift off and eventually exit the Earth's gravity, since, after all, you would logically be walking in a straight line!
You omitted the key part of that sentence: "a person of that time would be quite reasonable in assuming that going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west forever." I'm not talking about the modern flat earth model, because at the point you're joining us this thread is talking about pre-Columbus times.going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west foreverYour definition of "west" is bizarre, as it seems to imply a single, static direction. Your idea of "west" seems to suggest that, on a round Earth, you would have to lift off and eventually exit the Earth's gravity, since, after all, you would logically be walking in a straight line!