Talk:Spherical Earth

Epicureans
Epicurus and his school did not believe other Greeks that the Earth was a sphere, since, being extreme empiricists, they objected to "dialectic" used to establish this fact while clearly not seeing any roundness. This view conforms to their physics where the natural movement of atoms is from up to down and the whole universe is a random assemblage of atoms caused by their "swerve." So, Epicureans were the only clearly identifiable group of educated Europeans who did not agree that the Earth was a sphere after this fact was discovered. Hopefully, someone can add a section on Epicureans to the main text with proper references. Pernambuco1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Atoms and flat-Earth ethics by James Hannam? The claim made by this essay that Epicureans thought the world was flat is disputed. This probably isn't worth mentioning unless there's some more direct scholarship or evidence other expert authors have the same opinion? -- Beland (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, and I don't know where it is disputed. To confirm it, check out any of the primary sources on Epicurean physics; "De Rerum Natura" of Lucretius comes to mind.

Ibn Hazm
With this edit, Nightscream adds Ibn Hazm back in, this time with his name actually mentioned in the now-grammatical edit. However, the section it is in (Islamic astronomy) describes Arabic mensuration of the earth, the spherical nature of the earth long having been long ago accepted. What is the context of Ibn Hazm's observation? Why is it any more relevant than saying the same thing today as one in a list of many evidences for the spherical earth? Since Muslim scholars already knew the earth was spherical by then, and had developed mathematical techniques around that knowledge, this mention is superfluous. I intend to remove it after a period of commentary. Also, is there something wrong with the translation or paraphrasing? Saying that “the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth” makes no sense and is not true. Strebe (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This claim is still in the article. It is true if you understand it as "at any given time, there is a point on the Earth where the Sun is directly overhead" and that this point changes throughout the day and year. It's an interesting and concise proof, despite the context of other Islamic scholars. I'll clarify the wording by paraphrasing instead of quoting. -- Beland (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Flat Earth
overlaps almost entirely with. It seems like it would be easier for readers and editors to have a single article that covers historical thinking about the shape of the Earth. I'm not sure what the best merge target would be, though, and whether the sections on Cause and Empirical confirmation and effects should go to the same place or not. I was thinking History of geodesy but editors there felt there wasn't enough overlap, since that's mostly about measurement (though it includes very early measurements). The next possibility is Figure of the Earth, but I think that may have similar problems of different focus and lack of sufficient overlap. So the best I can think of at the moment is History of the figure of the Earth but that doesn't sound all that great. Discovery of the shape of the Earth? Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I like History of the figure of the Earth. fgnievinski (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That’s not the right approach. Figure of the earth is a term of art in geodesy; it is not the state of belief in the earth's shape for whatever culture at whatever time. Concerning, definitely the duplicative material needs to be mostly removed. The real problem with is that it documents the transition into the spherical model, along with all kinds of details about that, which is not its job. Its job (with renamed section) should be to document the transition away from the flat-earth model. That’s not quite the same thing. The description of the transition could be drastically reduced by restricting it to listing the periods in which the various cultures abandoned the flat earth model. They all had the same reason for doing so, although supporting details for those reasons could be included. Strebe (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, we can give that a try. I re-tagged the article for cleanup instead of merging. Thanks for pondering this question! -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Warning

 * I think we should warn Flat Earth article readers on something.

The set of proofs (such as tidal lock etc.) is compiled in Shperical Earth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user 6292789 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It has since moved, but I have added a link from the intro of Flat Earth. -- Beland (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not about how the earth isn’t flat
This series of edits goes further into the unfortunate territory we discuss just above in Talk:Spherical Earth]]. This article is not a refutation of flat earth theories or even a comparison of spherical to flat earth. The evidences should be (cited) descriptions of how and why we know the earth to be spherical. Flat is not the only alternative model, so the article certainly should not be a blow-by-blow account of the strengths of spherical-versus-flat models. Ultimately, this series of edits (along with some material already there) give flat earth proponents WP:UNDUE prominence. Strebe (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would some material be better on Modern flat Earth societies, where attention to flat-Earth theories is perhaps more justified? What's there now is mostly about the societies and not the ideas that they have. -- Beland (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That does sound like a better home for it. Odd that the article doesn’t already go into details. Strebe (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Content moved. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey! Nicd 3 years payse you had there! Something is wrong with my links now! I've been mentioning "spherical earth#effects and empirical evidence" header and now flatearthers may jab me with "Wikipedia says nothing, ballie" lines. Please put the header of the section back so tgere would be a small section leading to "the another place". 2A00:1370:812B:F479:6C53:3E1B:E24A:E896 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure you'll get this message; you may want to sign up for an account to more easily communicate on talk pages. There's a link to Modern flat Earth beliefs in the "See also" section. makes a good point about that being a better home for it, since the fact of the earth's spherical shape is not really in serious academic dispute. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Observation of the stars at altitude" section has nothing to do with observing stars.
The aforenamed section actually discusses the fact that the observable horizon drops as the observer gains altitude (at a predictable rate which is very different in the case of a sphere vs. any sort of flat surface). This is only tangentially related to stars, in the sense that one could theoretically see more stars (near the horizon) at altitude. But in practice, the drop of the horizon is so slight (about 0.5 degrees at 1,000 feet, and proportional to the square root of the observer's height), that no practical observation would reveal obviously more stars. In fact, measurements like Al Biruni's are done during the daytime, when a clear view of the horizon is possible, so that its angle can be precisely compared against true horizontal. Recommend changing the title of this section to: "Observation of the horizon at altitude". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.44.2 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section is now on Modern flat Earth beliefs, but I have changed the title as requested. -- Beland (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Cause
Not sure if implying causality if even necessary or relevant, but irregardless it should be cited if included as its own section Genetikbliss (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a request for citations in the "Cause" section. It's true they're needed; they could presumably be copied from the linked articles. -- Beland (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Split History section?
Section Spherical Earth overlaps widely with Earth's circumference and Meridian arc, not to mention History of geodesy. Can we minimize the duplications? fgnievinski (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * History of geodesy seems like the natural home for this material. Strebe (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing a reason to remove the large section relevant to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea is to have a single history of the measurement of the size of the earth, rather than two histories, each of which has half the details, plus a smattering of articles with scraps of the history. The consolidation should make navigation and understanding easier for readers. It's true it will leave this article a bit small, but that may just mean it's time to merge with one or more related articles. -- Beland (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree all these articles should point to History of geodesy with details consolidated there. Earth radius will also need to be updated. -- Beland (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The move from Spherical Earth is complete. -- Beland (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! fgnievinski (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Documented before 5th century BC
The article mentions greek documentation as early as the 5th century BC but there is a verse in the Bible, written by King Solomon who lived near 900 years BC.

Proverbs 8:27 “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:”

I am not questioning or challenging the accuracy of the article but I thought it could be inserted in it.

Thank you. 2804:431:C7F1:8F96:18F0:28F6:B93D:C69E (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Claim is based one particular (unidentified) English translation of this verse – what do other translations say? AstroLynx (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It wouldn’t even matter what other translations say; we could only insert such a quote if scholarly analysis were to confirm its significance to this context. In particular, mention of “compass” is a giant red flag. Compasses were not a thing, a word, or a concept in the time of Solomon. Strebe (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are at least two Bible verses which describe the character of the planet, both of which pre-date the work by the Greek scientists/philosophers.

“He stretches out the northern sky [literally, “the north”] over empty space [literally, “emptiness”], Suspending the earth upon nothing;” Since the book of Job contains poetry distinctive of the Hebrew style, and the prose bears strongest resemblance to the Pentateuch, of which Moses was also the writer, I would agree with the tradition shared among both Jewish and early Christian scholars, that Moses is the writer of the book of Job, making this description of the earth pre-date the Greek’s description by about 1000 years. Note the descriptive writing, that the earth isn’t described as ‘sitting’, but rather as ‘hanging’ or ‘suspended’ on nothing. In addition, the direction of the suspension isn’t described as ‘from above’, as it might be if the belief was of the earth being a flat plate; no, but the description is of its hanging or being suspended from a direction, ‘the north’, as if speaking of a ball or sphere.
 * 1: The book of Job, written by Moses, who died in 1473 BC, states in chapter 26 and verse 7:

“There is One who dwells above the circle [Or, a Hebrew word that could alternately be translated as “sphere”] of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” Yes, I know the so-called ‘higher critics’ like to try to post-date this book to avoid any embarrassment. But their mistaken belief that ‘miracles can’t happen because they’re miraculous’ bespeaks an arrogance that sounds just as hollow when their statement is rewritten to embrace the equally empty attitude that ‘prophecies can’t happen because that would make them prophetic’. Nevertheless, the book of Isaiah is a part of the Bible canon, and is held as authentic and accurate scientifically, archeologically, and spiritually. Let’s face it, no amount of post-dating will remove the Isaiah scroll from the 1947 find of the Dead Sea scrolls, which contain the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in the greatest of detail. And since the God of Truth, who hates lying and deception, would be loath to use the writings of a charlatan to dispatch true and faithful prophecies, then I would presume to say that if the Messianic prophecies which Isaiah wrote in the Dead Sea scrolls at least 100 years before Christ walked the earth, faithfully came true in every detail, then the previous prophecies that Isaiah also wrote, about the fall of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, about king Cyrus’ capture of Babylon, and about Babylon’s ultimate destruction to become a ‘heap of ruins’ down to this very day - yes, all of these prophecies also faithfully came true! Which would make the writing of Isaiah 40:22 predate the Greek scientists/ philosophers by about 250 to 300 years.
 * 2: The book of Isaiah, containing writings between at least 778 BC (the death of king Uzziah) and 732 BC (the 14th year of king Hezekiah), states in part at chapter 40 and verse 22:

Thank you for the opportunity to add to the conversation. <references include: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, copy-write 2013, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania; and ‘All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial’, copy-write 1990, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 95-96 and 118-119.
 * Thank you, but there needs to be a scholarly source that makes that interpretation if any of the above is to be added to the article (see No original research for the context). Religious texts can be interpreted in many different ways, and it is a part of Wikipedia's rules that we can not use editors' own interpretation of such texts.Sjö (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bring back the empirical evidence, please
Please return the "empirical" section.

It was rather... exquicite to learn, how roundness of Earth could be told in 1492-1493 before Columbus' discovery and Drake's around-the-world travel. 2A00:1FA0:45B:B66D:0:44:908C:3B01 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In lieu of flat earth trolling I would recommend to make own section "Empirical evidence contradicting with flat earth theory" in "Flat Earth" section. However, all the empirical evidence was moved to a ridiculously niche article specifically for a tiny minority of people specializing on debunking; which actually makes it HARDER to counter flatearthers. 109.252.65.139 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ADDITIONAL INFO
 * Hi, I'm not sure if you are one person or two, or if you'll get this message; you may want to sign up for an account to more easily communicate on talk pages and keep your IP address private. There's a link to Modern flat Earth beliefs in the "See also" section. makes a good point above about that being a better home for it, since the Earth's shape is not really in serious factual dispute. -- Beland (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you pretty please at least tinker with "history" chapter and put Magellan's around-the-globe journey (as well as Francis Drake's one, if possible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812B:F479:21E8:714B:613C:2231 (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure if you're one of the above people or a third person? Those voyages are covered by the article Circumnavigation, which is already linked from the "History of concept and measurement" section. I don't see any particular reason to go into more detail, given that this section covers thousands of years in one paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was supposed to be a family-frendly article for kids! Now, the "History of concept and measurement" chapter looks stub-like and abrupt, without such basics as elaborating on Aristotle's works and star-related measurments. 109.252.188.3 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created a separate article Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth, so that it can be automatically excerpted from Spherical Earth and from Modern flat Earth beliefs. fgnievinski (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The French Geodesic Mission
Please add this. Thank you. (Excerpt taken from Timeline of Solar System astronomy; it can be re-worded as needed.)

37.134.90.176 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1735–1739 – The French Academy of Sciences sends two expeditions to measure the oblateness of the Earth by measuring the length of a degree of latitude at two locations: one to Lapland, close to the Arctic Circle and other to the Equator, the French Geodesic Mission. Their measurements show that the Earth is an oblate spheroid flattened at the poles.


 * This appears in Meridian arc, where the detail is at the right level. It’s too specific for this article — and in fact, the French expedition was motivated by the fact that the earth deviates meaningfully from a sphere. Strebe (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The statements "[...]flattening of the earth ellipsoid was determined to be of the order of 1/300" in the lead and "[...]the shape of the geoid was first found not to be a perfect sphere but to approximate an oblate spheroid, a specific type of ellipsoid" are quite vague. The aforementioned paragraph about the French Geodesic Mission can be put in "History of concept and measurement" section, providing summarized proper encyclopedic and closely related data. I think the article needs this bit to promote the article to B-class; please remember Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia (I already would did the change, but the article is locked). Also, per style, please capitalize every instance of the word "Earth" when referred to our planet. Thank you. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the other hand, the French expedition (FGM, to short) in reality was motivated by empirically testing two contradictory views on the oblateness, one by Newton and other by Cassini, by then a hot debate. This is already stated in the FGM article, and is backed by aboundant historical records. It was proven by the FGM that Newton held the right statement. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To repeat, this article is about the spherical earth, not the oblate ellipsoidal earth. Its oblateness is mentioned to point out that the earth is not actually spherical. Details about other topics need to go in the articles about the other topics. Strebe (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even in the case you only want to address the perfect Spherical Earth concept, the "history" section is still far to give the complete picture:
 * The first Greek philosopher credited to pose a spherical Earth was Parmenides around 475 BCE.
 * A number of Greek philosophers, including Anaxagoras around 450 BCE, Philolaus around 400 BCE and Plato around 360 BCE support the idea by philosophical reasoning, but lacking fully empirical evidence.
 * A number of Hellenistic astronomers, including Eudoxus of Cnidus and Callippus around 360 BCE elaborate the concept by geometric-mathematical means.
 * Aristotle around 350 BCE also provides some empirical evidence. He influenced later astronomers as Heraclides Ponticus around 330 BCE, Aristarchus of Samos around 280 BCE and Archimedes around 250 BCE.
 * Eratosthenes around 200 BCE makes the first known successful estimated measurement of the Earth radius. Hipparchus around 150 BCE estimates the size of, and the distance to, the Moon in Earth radii.
 * Posidonius of Apamea around 100 BCE re-computes the Earth radii to be about 3/4 of its actual size.
 * Claudius Ptolemy around 150 CE provides much more empirical evidence, but he accepts the lesser value given by Posidonius. With his highly influent work, the Almagest, among medieval scholars there were no doubt about a spherical Earth, but they were wrong about its size.
 * Christopher Colombus around 1490 thinks that travelling about 3,000 miles to the West they will reach the Eastern coasts of Asia, but they arrive to the Americas.
 * Magellan expedition, first circumnavigation of the World, concludes in 1522.
 * Isaac Newton (along with Christiaan Huygens) and Jacques Cassini around 1690 to 1730 argue for an oblated spheroid Earth instead of a perfect sphere, but they disagree in which the Equatorial or Polar radius is the greater one due to two different interpretations of the Newtonian mechanics.
 * Finally, the French Geodesic Mission (1735–1739) measures one degree of latitude at two locations, near the Artic Circle and the Equator, and finds Newton's conjecture is correct: the Earth is flattened at the poles, due to centrifugal force.
 * Please, Can some authorized editor put all this in the article's "history" section? References can be taken from the wikilinked articles. Thank you. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, Can some authorized editor put all this in the article's "history" section? References can be taken from the wikilinked articles. Thank you. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Error in page preview
The page preview of the term 'Earth's circumference' contains an error: it states the circumference of Earth is 400,075.017km, that should be 40,075.017km. (The miles should be fixed accordingly.) PManuel72 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)