Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Round Earth reference?  (Read 152760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mat183

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Reputation: +216/-136
  • Gender: Male
Round Earth reference?
« on: January 14, 2025, 10:35:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone have an earlier reference?  The earliest reference I have for a round Earth comes from the Phaedo, a dialogue written between 383 B.C. and 367 B.C. by the Greek Philosopher Plato.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48051
    • Reputation: +28380/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #1 on: January 14, 2025, 10:50:56 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Yeah, so even those you have to try understanding the "context".  Ancients believed that the earth was circular in the sense of there being a circle of lands and they believed all the lands were surrounded on all sides by the Ocean (with land in the center), so you'd have to dig in to what he meant by "circle" or "round".

    Dr. Sungenis makes this mistake in looking at the Church Fathers where he "reads into" every single reference to sphere or even circle as referring to NASA's ball earth theory.  That's far from the case.


    Offline Mat183

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 571
    • Reputation: +216/-136
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #2 on: January 22, 2025, 01:51:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone know when the earliest reference for a globe earth was?

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2529
    • Reputation: +1041/-1108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #3 on: January 22, 2025, 01:59:12 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • On the Circular Motions of the Celestial Bodies by Cleomedes from around 240 BC describes how Eratosthenes estimated the circuмference of the Earth using the angles of shadows. The calculations presuppose a spherical Earth. 

    No idea if it's the oldest, but it's one old source where the references to a "round" Earth cannot be interpreted as referring to a flat circle.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4224
    • Reputation: +2466/-532
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #4 on: January 22, 2025, 04:05:33 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!2
  • Aristotle proved that the earth was spherical in the 4th century B.C. by various arguments. I think it has been posted here before. Around the same time, a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes actually measured the circuмference of the earth using a couple of sticks and a tape measure, and was off by only 3% or so.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48051
    • Reputation: +28380/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #5 on: January 22, 2025, 11:59:16 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Aristotle proved that the earth was spherical in the 4th century B.C. by various arguments. I think it has been posted here before. Around the same time, a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes actually measured the circuмference of the earth using a couple of sticks and a tape measure, and was off by only 3% or so.

    :facepalm:

    Aristotle used the old ships disappearing over the "horizon" bottom up argument and also the shadow of the earth on the moon, both of which we now know to be fails.  Modern optics bring ships back into full view after they appear to have disappeared, and unless you have perfectly calm waters, that's simply going to happen as your angle shrinks.  Spheres actually project their shadows as straight lines onto other spheres, and this is just a wild guess based on assumptions.

    Eratosthenes experiment relies upon the assumption of a very large sun that's so far away that its rays would effectively be parallel by the time they reach earth.  But if the sun were closer and smaller, the same effect would be achieved over a flat surface.

    So both of these are total fails.  Of course, nobody even really knows if Eratosthenes actually existed or whether he was made up after the fact, and he also concluded that the sun was one million miles away ... pure assumption, but wrong even by the standards of modern science.

    See, you've been around this debate long enough to know all this, but you keep regurgitating the same crap, despite its having been clearly refuted ... which does little more than demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty.

    Offline Dominique

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 67
    • Reputation: +50/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #6 on: January 23, 2025, 05:05:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone know when the earliest reference for a globe earth was?
    sorry, doubled up 🤦

    Offline Dominique

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 67
    • Reputation: +50/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #7 on: January 23, 2025, 05:06:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone know when the earliest reference for a globe earth was?
    The Old Testament has quite a few...


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48051
    • Reputation: +28380/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #8 on: January 23, 2025, 06:02:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • The Old Testament has quite a few...

    No, and OP means a sphere not a circle, which is the word used in the OT ... one time.  That passage actually suggests FE not ball.

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #9 on: January 23, 2025, 01:31:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • For easy understanding of the Eratosthenes science, here's a short video to explain how things work. 

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/53PNVTh7jexp

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1192
    • Reputation: +969/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #10 on: January 23, 2025, 02:45:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • So many people don't wanna admit they've been dooped. The powers at be make sure truth is seen as what the kooks believe.

    They gotcha... theyyyy gotchaaaa.


    Offline St Giles

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1718
    • Reputation: +884/-202
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #11 on: January 23, 2025, 03:24:03 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • For easy understanding of the Eratosthenes science, here's a short video to explain how things work.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/53PNVTh7jexp
    That's a laughably bad video. It's the usual thing where they basically expect you to believe them just because they say it, but they'll back up their credibility by showing you an example of something else that apparently looks to be true, but is based on a camera's optical illusion or something similar, while they don't trust the cameras when GE's use them.

    "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven..."
    "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment"

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #12 on: January 23, 2025, 03:54:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That's a laughably bad video. It's the usual thing where they basically expect you to believe them just because they say it, but they'll back up their credibility by showing you an example of something else that apparently looks to be true, but is based on a camera's optical illusion or something similar, while they don't trust the cameras when GE's use them.
    Ok. Laughably bad you say. Please give us specifics, show us how the examples don't work. What exactly is "something similar"? Lobbing cotton ball arguments devoid of substance against the video is insufficient for making your case. What cameras do people not find trustworthy? If I remember correctly, it's the globers who don't trust the cameras that prove boats do not disappear behind the horizon, but boats for the human eye, evaporate visually within the diminishing angle of resolution when at sea.       

    Offline St Giles

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1718
    • Reputation: +884/-202
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #13 on: January 23, 2025, 05:36:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • He lobbed a cotton ball that claims that the moon makes the exact same shadows as the sun, while offering no evidence.

    He left out the consideration of certain variables such as the size of the system in question. When considering local light on a small scale, lets say within reach of a human or maybe even 500ft away, the light rays may be assumed to be parallel depending on the nature of the experiment and the precision required. But when considering a system that contains the whole earth and moon or sun, obviously the light rays are not parallel, and even the slightest change in angle has a great effect. The precision needed for that system is much higher.

    The sun and moon can only make the exact same shadows when the results match up no matter the level of precision involved. But it's just a confused mess using the parallel light "paradox" as a decoy or strawman or whatever, when in reality things aren't always so simple, and distinctions need to be made. Based on the size and distance of the sun and moon, both radiate light from a large radius that illuminates much of the earth, while appearing almost perfectly parallel at any location on earth that can be observed by one person.

    He then deceives with his spotlight demonstration that the sun and moon can't have parallel light because you'd be blinded like the camera when looking directly at them instead of seeing a circle of light, even though he first adds the condition that spot lights don't have perfectly parallel light (so why would the sun or moon need perfectly parallel light to act like they have parallel light?). Whether you are entirely blinded, partially, or can clearly see a circle of light all depends on how bright the source is in comparison to the properties of the light the sensor (our eyes or a camera) based on sensitivity, dynamic range, and aperture size. The morning and evening sun is notorious for blinding people while driving unless they use a visor or sunglasses. What makes a spot light a spot light is mainly its high intensity compared to the surrounding light. 

    You make a fair point about cameras. They can be easily used to deceive or misinterpret. FE's claim it's the camera's fault if the curve of the earth is seen, but they expect GE's to believe whatever footage apparently supports FE. 
    "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven..."
    "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment"

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #14 on: January 23, 2025, 06:42:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He lobbed a cotton ball that claims that the moon makes the exact same shadows as the sun, while offering no evidence.

    He left out the consideration of certain variables such as the size of the system in question. When considering local light on a small scale, lets say within reach of a human or maybe even 500ft away, the light rays may be assumed to be parallel depending on the nature of the experiment and the precision required. But when considering a system that contains the whole earth and moon or sun, obviously the light rays are not parallel, and even the slightest change in angle has a great effect. The precision needed for that system is much higher.

    The sun and moon can only make the exact same shadows when the results match up no matter the level of precision involved. But it's just a confused mess using the parallel light "paradox" as a decoy or strawman or whatever, when in reality things aren't always so simple, and distinctions need to be made. Based on the size and distance of the sun and moon, both radiate light from a large radius that illuminates much of the earth, while appearing almost perfectly parallel at any location on earth that can be observed by one person.

    He then deceives with his spotlight demonstration that the sun and moon can't have parallel light because you'd be blinded like the camera when looking directly at them instead of seeing a circle of light, even though he first adds the condition that spot lights don't have perfectly parallel light (so why would the sun or moon need perfectly parallel light to act like they have parallel light?). Whether you are entirely blinded, partially, or can clearly see a circle of light all depends on how bright the source is in comparison to the properties of the light the sensor (our eyes or a camera) based on sensitivity, dynamic range, and aperture size. The morning and evening sun is notorious for blinding people while driving unless they use a visor or sunglasses. What makes a spot light a spot light is mainly its high intensity compared to the surrounding light.

    You make a fair point about cameras. They can be easily used to deceive or misinterpret. FE's claim it's the camera's fault if the curve of the earth is seen, but they expect GE's to believe whatever footage apparently supports FE.
    Ok, points taken. More study on this subject. Not sure, but is GE short for geocentric earthers?