Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bzz

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Cogito ergo sum is
« on: January 11, 2017, 04:23:32 PM »
Cogito ergo sum is. I think, therefore I am.
By accepting the sentence above as “truth”, our existence becomes a fact that one can prove by reasoning. Therefore, the fact I exist is true because I'm thinking it. But how under this light should we try to understand the purpose of our existence? Existence is understood by our minds as an ability to be aware of it: cogito ergo sum is. Do I reason when I’m not aware/conscious of my thoughts? When I’m in a state of sleep, am I able to reason my existence? Am I not being aware of my existence while sleeping?
Reason only accepts physical existence as truth, an event that needs a time and a place to be. Reasoning is a tool used by our mind. Cogito ergo sum is a materialist way of thinking, once it accepts reality just as something physical. This method of investigation per se does not allow us to perceive our existence through our senses, our body. And by reasoning we’re only feeling existence with our mind.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The importance of writing by hand
« on: January 11, 2017, 12:22:21 PM »
Did you write this post by pencil then transcribe?

I used a keyboard. This post is a thought, not one I had about myself, though it was written by me. It's about an experience provided by something very simple, our hand in contact with an instrument. At some point, so much writing by hand will lead to so many insights, as any other pratice would do, and looking so much into our self inevitably drags us into a metaphysics of any sort. A philosopher is a writer who writes about himself.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / The importance of writing by hand
« on: January 10, 2017, 12:39:39 PM »
One thing some may not remember is that writing by hand is how ideas are created through our whole body: it's our whole body transmitting an idea and this idea leaves the realm of the mind. Ideas only take form by means of expression, like writing using a code.  When we just read and think, we're using reason, and we are not expressing our self, because the information is only in the realm of mind. Writing is a form of expression and any human form of expression is art per se.
Art is outside the realm of the mind. Art is art; it is what it is, regardless what our mind think of it, our interpretation of it. Since we're mindful beings, we do not realize the importance of selfexpression.  Mind is a sense, just like smell, vision...

By writing by hand, our whole body expresses himself as well as our spirit. Our spirit is not our mind. To give voice to our whole senses, we just need an instrument, a pencil, for example. Our body, arms, fingers, nails, eyes, ears, spirit and mind are going to be part of something together, selfexpression, which can be accomplished with the alphabet. When we just think something over, we're trapped in the realm of mind, just one sense. Letting people read our thoughts and evaluate them gives us the chance to understand more about our self, about who we are. Discovering something can be done then through writing.
It's another realm, it's the realm of art, when our self encounters a way for expression. We can use someone else writtings to evaluate alzheimmer disease, for example, and it's obivous why.
 
For example, a typewriter machine dictates its own rhythm, which is fast, and it's not the speed of the human natural way of writing. See for example Friedrich Nietzsche's writings done by typewriters and the ones by hand. Changing the instrument alters the way we express ourselves. Writing using a keyboard and a monitor/screen doesnt allow us to have a good rythm, because we can write very fast using the distribution of letters of the keyboard, and our thoughts may get shuffled because we write so fast, and we do not have the patience to write slowly, because the keyboard and the computer are machines that were designed for speed purposes. Wrinting by pencil, feathers, anything that allows free hand movement, is an experience through which you reveal a part of your self, just like using any substance may revealsomething, because it triggers an experience. Writing by hand is feeling an experience and it demands years of practice but the reward is along the path and not at the end.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question
« on: September 21, 2016, 05:54:40 PM »
Hello all,

First, full disclosure.  I honestly didn't believe there were people that believed the Earth was flat when a friend told me so.  I came here and sure enough, apparently there are.

After reading this forum for about 2 hours, I am genuinely curious about something.  I want to be absolutely clear, I'm not being facetious or condescending, I'm genuinely asking this because I genuinely want to know the answer.  So here goes:

With the technology that's available at very reasonable prices (i.e. weather balloon and a go pro), it seems that you could simply find out for yourself with definitive certainty if the Earth was round or flat.  The red bull stratos video comes to mind.  So, the question:  Why not just do that?

I've seen a lot of posts that pose many different proofs using math and perspective, etc.  But it seems like the easiest proof would be to just send up a camera and look.

Again, I can't stress this enough.  I'm asking a serious question and I'm interested in a serious answer.  This is not any kind of troll or attempt to belittle your beliefs.

Thanks,

"at very reasonable prices".

Like saying: spend your money to prove I'm wrong/right. Not fair, don't you think?

5
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet
« on: September 08, 2016, 01:39:03 PM »
I'm into your arguments and reasons globe and flat earthers, but have you wondered that until this time people have not really proven once and for all that the earth is globe or flat. Until this time! Why were/are people made to believe that the earth is globe (mostly) or flat (selectively) where in fact there are still 1001 arguments among concerned people or truth seekers trying to prove it. Even with NASA and science book and educators around, this situation remains unresolved. Well, how long will this issue remain to be unproven? Why are there too many loopholes in existing proofs found in science materials every where? And why the flat earthers, day in and day out, keep on discovering new proofs? Of course, we're basically all globe earthers as we're taught by formal education, but why are people keep on knowing things and info that are inconsistent with what were taught in school? Say something folks! May your kind of earth be proven right in time! Go,go,go... :)

Well, could you link some of your 1001 other references about Earth's shape?

I can only say that for some globe people it feels right having such an aggressive ideology, under the disguise of hundreds of complex and intertwined scientific facts. This gives them authority. Imagine you losing your authority. :) Remember that modern science is a fruit of capitalism, since it's been growing on its branches for years. If you want to make their science then, you have to be a capitalist. You'll have to bend if you don't want to be a 'lunatic' at maximum. See?

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet
« on: September 08, 2016, 01:11:26 PM »
Questions for the shills: 
How can anybody know a camera is at 120,000 feet of altitude? 
Just because the guy who posted it on the internet says so?? 





Far be for me to give advice to liars but I am surprised the globullshitters never object to these balloon+camera video evidence by denying the veracity of the measurement of height.

That's the premise held. If the premise is right, then it can be used to demonstrate the earth is flat, as it has been correctly done.
Institutions do the same every day with proofs backing up their ideology. The difference is that people, like Rabinoz, Rounder, decide their proof is beyond doubt, and never question "How can I be so sure this is real?" as you just did.
Personally i'm more inclined to believe non-institutional information though.

As for the optics: when someone discredits nasa's optics, this is called conspiracy. But when someone makes an experiment with his own means, it seems there is an urgent necessity to discredit it because it goes against institutional information, which is highly bureaucratic, with its main premise being not to accept any information from those without credentials and years in their schools (universities).

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Galápagos and Antarctica
« on: September 06, 2016, 09:27:01 PM »
Accepted science believes that on the bottom of Galápagos Islands lays the biggest network of magma formation which connects itself to the exact center of the Earth. Sporadically these elements come out Earth forming land.
What you are claiming seems bizarre. Would you please give some references to this.
As far as I know magma does not extend below about 200 km.
Quote
Magmas form in the crust and upper mantle, within 200 km (most much shallower) of the surface. Since most of the Earth at these depths is NOT molten, magma formation implies special circumstances of temperature, pressure or material properties.
from Magmas.
. . . . . . . . .
<< does not address what I asked >>
. . . . . . . . .

Your claim was: "Accepted science believes that on the bottom of Galápagos Islands lays the biggest network of magma formation which connects itself to the exact center of the Earth."

Please show where is your source for Accepted science claiming this biggest network of magma formation connecting itself to the exact center of the Earth.

Surely you must have some sound basis for such a claim.

This is probably false. I could not verify this. Maybe it was a wild hypothesis used at the time the documentary was produced (from where I've heard it).
But the other two hypotheses are easily verifiable and they're stranger than this one.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet
« on: September 06, 2016, 08:17:48 PM »
That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

No, it supports neither theory.  Both theories agree, you should not see curvature.  Each theory has a different reason why, but since both predict the same outcome, that outcome supports neither.

It would be like saying that I think the sky is blue because of rayleigh scatter, and someone else thinks it's blue because nitrogen molecules are blue.  We look up, and what do you know, the sky IS blue!  That doesn't support the 'blue molecules' theory.

You're right, in part. In this specific case, note that the experiment has been carried out, proving that up to 120 feet the earth is flat. You can argue otherwise and pose problems to it. This means the question is still open. But the experiment had been done and had supported the flat model. That's not disputable. If you want to theorize why at that height no curvature should be seen, I think the burden of proof is on you. Simply dening it based on numbers found in a book is not reality.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet
« on: September 06, 2016, 06:06:49 PM »
The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

That's exactly what's assumable when you determine a specific size for Earth. So, according to THEORY, the curvature is not visible because of such-and-such. But this does NOT change the fact that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet, which supports flat earth theory.

My question is whether can a rounder show the curvature of the Earth in the proportion they've been theorizing?

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Galápagos and Antarctica
« on: September 06, 2016, 01:35:34 PM »
Accepted science believes that on the bottom of Galápagos Islands lays the biggest network of magma formation which connects itself to the exact center of the Earth. Sporadically these elements come out Earth forming land.
What you are claiming seems bizarre. Would you please give some references to this.
As far as I know magma does not extend below about 200 km.
Quote
Magmas form in the crust and upper mantle, within 200 km (most much shallower) of the surface. Since most of the Earth at these depths is NOT molten, magma formation implies special circumstances of temperature, pressure or material properties.
from Magmas.

I found this information in a film documentary. I'm trying to locate it again. Some american researchers were at Galápagos explaining what their camera was recording. They've built a 3D image of Galápagos vulcanism activity underneath the islands and claimed to have discovered that each volcano is interconnected to another one, creating a huge network of magma, the biggest ever seen, acting as a plumbing system.
Also they walked down long "lava tubes", huge tunels created by magma.


I find most of their conclusions about what they see somewhat arbitrary though.
What do you think of this all?

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Galápagos and Antarctica
« on: September 05, 2016, 09:55:35 PM »
Accepted science believes that on the bottom of Galápagos Islands lays the biggest network of magma formation which connects itself to the exact center of the Earth. Sporadically these elements come out Earth forming land.

It also believes all animals on Galápagos once had to make a long journey to there, millions of years ago, eventually changing its physical characteristics by means of adaptation. It is believed an Iguana was able to find its way to Galápagos Islands carried by a piece of wood, floating at least 960 km to reach its destination.

Recent studies claim Galápagos is in a such special spot in terms of maritime convergence. Specific ocean currents coming from Antarctica flow to the Islands carrying rich nutrients to create and sustain the richest marine ecosystem in the world.

What is the relevance vis-a-vis the shape of the earth, flat or round?

On the other hand, alternative hypotheses say Galápagos had been moving through centuries, detaching itself from Antarctica, where it was initially held, travelling according to Antarctica current (known as Humboldt). These currents contained several microorganisms invisible to our eyes, which are essential to bigger forms of life, establishing the whole species network on Galápagos, as if they contain the seeds for life creation.
I also read the hypothesis these microorganism emit specific light ranges, due their geometrical shapes. They interact producing a constant a glow. This is observable from satellite. As they glow, it is reflected by the sky back to us, functioning as a mirror. So when we look up we are seeing these microorganisms range of light. Since they move according to specific season conditions, this also would explain celestial movement.

Any thoughts?

This "constant glow" you speak of: is it brighter than the man made glow from literally millions of light bulbs all over the world? 
  • If NOT, how can we see the same constellations today that the ancients saw before electric light?
  • If SO, why is it dark at night?  Why does that "constant glow" not light up the whole world?


Not the intensity, but its frequency is higher than ours. So it cannot be detected by naked eye. This light hits the dome and is then reflected to us as a product of this interaction, resulting in the wavelength we see at night.

13
Flat Earth Community / Galápagos and Antarctica
« on: September 05, 2016, 03:42:42 PM »
Accepted science believes that on the bottom of Galápagos Islands lays the biggest network of magma formation which connects itself to the exact center of the Earth. Sporadically these elements come out Earth forming land.

It also believes all animals on Galápagos once had to make a long journey to there, millions of years ago, eventually changing its physical characteristics by means of adaptation. It is believed an Iguana was able to find its way to Galápagos Islands carried by a piece of wood, floating at least 960 km to reach its destination.

Recent studies claim Galápagos is in a such special spot in terms of maritime convergence. Specific ocean currents coming from Antarctica flow to the Islands carrying rich nutrients to create and sustain the richest marine ecosystem in the world.

On the other hand, alternative hypotheses say Galápagos had been moving through centuries, detaching itself from Antarctica, where it was initially held, travelling according to Antarctica current (known as Humboldt). These currents contained several microorganisms invisible to our eyes, which are essential to bigger forms of life, establishing the whole species network on Galápagos, as if they contain the seeds for life creation.
I also read the hypothesis these microorganism emit specific light ranges, due their geometrical shapes. They interact producing a constant a glow. This is observable from satellite. As they glow, it is reflected by the sky back to us, functioning as a mirror. So when we look up we are seeing these microorganisms range of light. Since they move according to specific season conditions, this also would explain celestial movement.

Any thoughts?

14
Flat Earth Community / Myth of the Cave analogy
« on: September 02, 2016, 03:28:17 PM »
The Myth of the Cave from The Republic by Plato, when taken literally, allows inferences of many kinds, like Planet being of a rather different nature from the one we’re used to living and thinking about. Look at this extract:

“(A1)Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all--they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.

(A2)What do you mean?

(A1)I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not.”

What “State” is the interlocutor referring to is my question. I pose it’s a hidden place, undiscovered and beyond discovery. The main interlocutor calls himself one of its founders and is pondering about the importance of “descending” again. They are above us. Descending would mean literally going down to Earth, where we live. He explains, in his narrative, how the prisoners are treated with false symbols produced by them, as put in the first passage of the text: "like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets". Screen here would be suited for official information and “they” indicates the ones who act as the illusionists. They have the true knowledge about our nature. All founders know about our existence because they came from the same place we’re now, but the people who came after the founders do not know about us. This class who knows and holds knowledge is called “Philosophers”. The allegory of the cave was produced by one of them.

Contrasting light with shadows tells about their location. They are in a very illuminated place, where light is much more strong. The physical discomforts the interlocutor mentions, such as eye pain, are due to the different nature of light there, which makes the ones who ascend blind momentarily.

Going even further, I infer they are at a point in Antarctica. They’ve climbed it and found the true nature of the sun – a place where light shines differently revealing the true nature of the world. But contemplating this took them time, since their eyes pertained to our ‘Earth’ reality. As the interlocutor highlights, the mind and the body must change together in order to be able to understand it. There there is an organization similar to the one of our modern State, which is not good at the eyes of the narrator. The purpose of the text was not to inform us. It is the dialogue between a philosopher and a student, a dialogue about the importance of not believing the apparent world, a lesson they've learned from their previous experience. “[they] must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.”

What your thoughts on this? thx

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: is the universe just cgi by nasa
« on: August 26, 2016, 09:36:14 PM »
okay so what bugs me more about all this flat earth thing is not the shape of the planet,but the flat earth theory says (correct me if im wrong)that there simply is no universe and is all nasa fakes and what is above us is a glass domed ceiling and above that water..so im just wondering do most flat earthers believe that there is no universe.

I really don't think so. The universe was there and observed millennia before NASA came on the scene.

There is simply no universe as it's been depicted by them. But it exists. That thing you see looking up is called "universe".

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: April 14, 2016, 01:52:09 PM »
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.
That's pretty obvious. My complaint is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.
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.

I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?
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.

To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.
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.

So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.
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)

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?

History is just a bad representation of ideas (commonly hold by those who try to persuade you into things). You're just guessing from the little you've read (and me too). The difference is that you push your opinion though as if it were the right one.

You can go east and end west with a flat earth concept. If you don't know that, go to faq. Navigators may have the same idea and know more about Earth than you imagine. Don't conclude you know everything.

 

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: April 12, 2016, 10:01:49 PM »
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, 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.
That's pretty obvious. My complain is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.

I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?

To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...
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.
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.

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?

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: April 12, 2016, 09:41:09 PM »
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.  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.


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?
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.

Are you fine? Let me be clearer for you: even though Columbus had the map and read Latin, this doesn't mean he had adopted its ideas; as we have several books on our shelves and this doesn't mean either we agree with them all. So far we know that Columbus disagreed with ptolemy's calculus. That's all.

Now i'm expecting you to show it is clearly that Columbus thought Earth was round. But I'm getting tired of your trial and error method pasting history.com links.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: April 11, 2016, 05:55:33 PM »
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.  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.


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?
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: April 11, 2016, 03:23:52 PM »
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 citations
I 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

Nasa has only adopted ideas, giving them new looks.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >