21

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 11, 2016, 03:02:57 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.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 08, 2016, 09:31:39 PM »

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.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 08, 2016, 08:56:48 PM »

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.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 08, 2016, 07:01:37 PM »

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 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.

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 09:53:48 PM »

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.

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 09:46:05 PM »

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.

Can you corroborate your statement anyhow?

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 09:44:56 PM »

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

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 05:29:49 PM »

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.

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!

IN 1492
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.

And 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!

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.

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

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

It's not on me to accept it or not. It's about the quality of your source.

The first misconception he presents says that Columbus set out to try to prove the Earth was round, and says that If he did it, he was about 2,000 years late. So how does it differ from what I’ve said? I also think he didn’t set to prove it. So it’s not a misconception I share. I actually prefer to keep open the possibility that Columbus wasn’t at all sure about the Earth shape, and his knowledge was rather practical, exploring and mapping, through coordinate systems.

I'm also gonna highlight this passage: "Columbus, a self-taught man, greatly underestimated the Earth's circumference" and ask the same question above to you. What does that actually mean? That he thought the Earth was really round? Strange.
The rest of the article depicts more about Columbus's life than his view about Earth.
Nothing in the article implies that Columbus knew the Earth was round, or provide me a direct quotation, please.

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 02:19:04 PM »

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.

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!

IN 1492
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.

And 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!

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.

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

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.

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 12:57:11 PM »

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.

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!

IN 1492
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.

And 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!

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.

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

Evaluate your sources and provide evidence of what you're telling.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 06, 2016, 09:07:59 PM »

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.

to 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.

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 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

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.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 06, 2016, 06:01:15 PM »

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.

to 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.

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 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).

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 06, 2016, 01:37:32 PM »

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.