Talk:Spherical Earth/Archive 3

Note

quick note: "Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel." --I do not see a specific citation or know of one, but barring that, Eratosthenes could also have assumed the sun was so large in comparison to the earth that the rays were parallel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.152.101 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Eratosthenes could also have assumed the sun was so large in comparison to the earth that the rays were parallel"

However, given the apparent size of the Sun from Earth, if indeed it were as large as you suggest (or deemed to be) it would necessarily mean the Sun was a very long distance from earth - Which is where we came in, I believe... Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend to strike ENTIRE article as speculative!

1st) There are no untampered PHOTOGRAPHS of the spherical earth in existence anywhere. NASA admits all PHOTOGRAPHS of the earth from outer space are photo-shopped or composite images or an artist's conception.

2nd) It is IMPOSSIBLE to circumnavigate the earth through the poles.

3rd) There are no untampered PHOTOGRAPHS of any man-made satellites in outer space beyond the "exosphere." NASA admits all PHOTOGRAPHS of man-made satellites in outer space beyond the "exosphere" are photo-shopped or composite images or an artist's conception.

4th) This article has an assumed "white supremacist" view or Euro-centric view of the spherical earth, completely excluding the facts that the ancient Chinese, Egyptians & people of India believed in a spherical earth & used mathematics to support their view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.161.118 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

5th) White supremacists and/or Euro-centrists invented the lie that everyone before the Greeks believed that Earth was supported on the back of elephants. There is a wiki article confirming this entitled: "World Elephant."

"The concept of a World Elephant is not found anywhere in the Puranas or the Epics. In the epics and major Puranas, there "is no myth of a world-upholding elephant",[1] and Al Biruni makes no mention of it, only quoting Brahmagupta who states "the earth is the only low thing".[2]

The alleged rendition of the World Turtle supporting one or several World Elephants is recorded in 1599 in a letter by a non-entity of a scholar named Emanual de Veiga.[3]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.161.118 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A talk page is not a soapbox. The points you make are either straw men, because the article does not state what you claim it states, or else they are well outside the bounds of WP:RELIABLE. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted. Of course you are welcome to contribute to any discussion that could reasonably result in improving the article. Strebe (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But NASA Admits that the first The_Blue_Marble image from Apollo 17 is a film photo, not 'photo-shopped or composite images or an artist's conception.' Samlehman (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

2015... That was a fun year.

Luckily, now, in 2020, we have empirical proofs.

For example, old adage of Flat Earth sophists "I don't trust Visibility Of Distant Objects proof. I have fish-eye lens, and look -- it hides the candle which is too far from it!"

• I would whip out another card: "visibility of stars at night"; you see 180 degree panorama of the starry sky at a given time in a given point at night. Not 150 degree, not 69 degree, not a 13 degree narrow patch, but a proper 180 degree.

• • And throughout the world, said "180 degree panorama" only slightly shifts day by day; until too bright nights in the summer nights' brightness blocks the view. Uchyotka (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If it wasn't Wikipedia you would have gotten so many backslash from other people lmao 950CMR (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew Old Testament As Earliest Known Written Recording of Round Earth

I'd like to propose that the biblical accounts of Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:10 be added to this page as a reference to the earliest recording of the spherical or round earth, Unless source cited for Ancient Greek recordings provides a valid date for those in his book. See and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32EE:3550:6899:4BCD:FB8D:913B (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Isaiah 40:22 is already discussed. Job 26:10 is just as ambiguous, and whether or not there is a reference to any shape depends on the translation. See [1]. It is worth mentioning that many of these verses are parts of poems. See this article discussion on Isaiah 40:22 at [[2]]. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Job has not been discussed as much as I would have hoped (referring to the archives). If we are to include an example of the Bible's allusive poetry, Job's passages would be the best example of this "circle" as it describes night and day (or the separation of light and darkness). Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

if you have references for scholarly interpretations in that direction, we could discuss those. Strebe (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

After further review, I hereby withdraw my entire argument on the basis that a "circle" described bibically can describe either a flat or spherical shape as it is not definitive; any further rendering of these circle passages to argue a sphere are nothing short of excessiveness. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to add back the above discussed commentary using more reliable sources. Both references below have been re-included, but I have also added an academic paper from a Berea College professor discussing that 1) the Bible says the earth is not flat and 2) that the argument for "circle" could go either way. The professor reached a personal conclusion that the only thing Scripture says is that there is no declaration of a flat earth. This is why the opening page says "not flat" instead of "a sphere". --2602:306:39D6:CBA0:6994:8E00:EFF4:8F8D (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have something you want to add from the Schneider essay, then you need to separate it from the rest of the fabrications in the edits you reverted. Edwards does not say what the edit claims, and the sources that were not Edwards or Schneider are not permissible. They are blatant Christian apologists. Schneider probably is not permissible either; it is merely an essay, not peer-reviewed scholarship, but in any case, Schneider does not even state what you claim he does. Strebe (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Ellipsoid?

See Talk:Figure_of_the_Earth#Spherical. --Jack Upland (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's centralize the discussion there. fgnievinski (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

angry oblate shperoid noises Uchyotka (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Version of English

The English was inconsistent, therefore I changed it to British English as that's what most of it is in, and it's more respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4429:DD00:8570:4115:F389:2113 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The word "respected" is a passive without an agent. At least, as in Wikipedia rules previously, usage should be consistent in any one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.109.228 (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

There is no support for anything related to "Kruger." I attempted to delete, but it is a bit complex for me. Can someone review and implement the deletion(s) if you agree? -- Ray Birks (Chicago, Illinois) 4 Sept. 2017.

User:RayBirks, I found your note here after I reverted your deletion. Thanks for trying to help. I can’t tell what you mean by “no support”. Do you mean Krüger is not a reliable source, or do you simply mean that the link no longer exists? Several suggestions:

• Sign your Talk page comments with “~~~~” (without quote marks) instead of writing our your name and date and so forth. Wikipedia will automatically sign your user name and provide the date.
• Please don’t delete bibliographic material. Whether the link functions or not, the citation for the book was valid.
• If a link seems to be dead, please search the Internet for an alternative. Material often gets moved, copied, archived. Deleting references and links without exercising due diligence is not helpful. For links that are truly dead, we often use The Wayback Machine.
• The reference you removed was only one of three references to the same source, so when you removed that one, you did not accomplish the removal of the citation, if that was your goal.

I know Wikipedia is complicated. Good luck in the future. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevance?

What is the relevance to this article of the following sentence: "Also of interest to note is on one side of the world, there is seen towering Chinese pagodas, while on the opposite side (upside-down) there were European cathedrals."? I see none. CielProfond (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This text has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Archimedes' On Floating Bodies doesn't really have anything to do with the round earth

The subsection on Archimedes mentions that in On Floating Bodies, he proves that the oceans are spherical, "thus giving the first demonstrative proof" of the spherical earth. I'm pretty sure this is a misreading of that work.

I don't have a copy with me, but I recall that Archimedes does prove that any body of fluid at gravitational equilibrium will have a "spherical" surface. Essentially though, he proves that the surface of a fluid at equilibrium is everywhere tangent to the force. If one already believes that the earth has a center, and that gravitational forces always point towards it, then you wind up with the conclusion that the surface is a sphere. His argument works equally well in a "flat earth" scenario, and the conclusion is that the surface of the fluid is planar. The shape of the earth is definitely an input to his proof and not a conclusion from it, and nothing in the core of the argument really has anything to do with the shape of the earth.

I'm going to go ahead an remove that section. If I'm off-base here, override me. I can't guarantee that I'll ever read any responses here! 2601:C1:401:5840:EC38:FC0F:B10F:214 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I wound up checking back, and I saw that the removal was reverted without explanation, and then expanded on, but it is still wrong: the sphericality of the earth is an *input* to the proof, and no part of the argument implies in any way that the earth or the oceans or anything else is spherical unless the arguer is already aware of at least one of those facts. 2601:C1:401:5840:EC38:FC0F:B10F:214 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember on Wikipedia we are not allowed to make our own interpretations of the meaning or validity of a primary source like Archimedes' On Floating Bodies. I've found a reiiable secondary source that shows Archimedes maintained the sphrricity of the Earth. Rorres states that "In his Propositions 8 and 9, Archimedes assumed that Earth was a sphere and that a body of liquid on it would assume a spherical shape, in accordance with his Proposition 2, On Floating Bodies I (cf., Ref. 5, p. 254)." This conforms to the apparent meaning of Proposition 2, which I've also cited in the article, as a demonstration of the spherical shape of a liquid on a spherical Earth.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey:I think you and the IP editor are talking past each other. The IP editor’s objection appears to have been the statement that Archimedes gave a “demonstrative proof” of earth’s sphericity. The IP editor appears to agree that Archimedes believed the earth to be spherical. I presume your recent edit satisfies the IP editor’s objection. Strebe (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Strebe: Good point, but as I read Archimedes, he seems to believe he has a proof of the sphericity of the Earth. He gives a demonstration in Prop 2 and uses the result later in Props 8 and 9. Whether it is a valid proof is another question. As you say, I hope the recent edit resolves the issues. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the main concern was that (while he may have thought otherwise) as the our understanding of proof has crystallized over 2000 years it is now clear that Archimedes didn't prove that the earth is roudn. The new changes definitely address that. A small secondary concern was that, for this reason, his work in that text has only superficially to do with the shape of the earth and possibly doesn't belong on this article. However, I agree that this is an interpretation and stylistic consideration and that I don't see any real problem with the way it's currently posed. Thanks! 2601:C1:401:5840:28C7:3A1C:C09B:D05F (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spherical Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305205943/http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/ans/eastm/back/cs11/cs11-4-martzloff.pdf to http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/ans/eastm/back/cs11/cs11-4-martzloff.pdf
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090710125718/http%3A//regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/oblate.cfm to http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/oblate.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you please protect this page

I saw in the edit history that there were quite a few flat earthers were changing the top section from "this article is about spherical earth" to "this article is about flat earth", adding text to the beginning of the article saying that "flat earth was the only earth", and even blanking the page with the message along the lines of "the earth is flat -furries" Evanultra01 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Thank you

The page has since been semi-protected. -- Beland (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Useless Pedantry"

Language of that sort is unnecessarily provocative. Please assume good faith.

A fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true". It is known that the Earth is not a sphere, so the sphericity of the Earth is not a fact, but an idea or concept, and the article Spherical Earth is not about a fact, but about an idea. 95.147.15.231 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My justification has nothing to do with the intent of the edit. The earth is not a sphere; it is not an ellipsoid; it is not a geoid. It is just the earth, but it is a fact that it is a sphere to a high degree of accuracy, and its deviation from a sphere is inconsequential to the description of the article. Hence, “useless pedantry”. Strebe (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider the first three paragraphs of the article. The Spherical Earth is referred to twice as a concept, and mention is made both of the Flat Earth concept that it replaced, and the Geoid Earth concept that has largely replaced it. "The Earth is not a sphere": the article is therefore not about a fact, but about a theory, concept, or idea, and the Earth's deviation from spherical is explicitly discussed. There are other articles about the true form of the Earth. My edit made the article description slightly more accurate, more consistent with the body of the article, and is therefore a slight improvement. There is no good justification to revert an article to a less accurate version, even if you feel that the improvement is small.95.147.15.231 (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost everything this last posting expresses is false or deflecting:

• Consider the first three paragraphs of the article. How about we consider the entire article?
• …Mention is made [of]… the Geoid Earth concept that has largely replaced it. The geoidal concept has not largely replaced the spherical concept. Ask any non-technical human, and even technical humans in contexts where it is more useful to talk about Earth as a sphere.
• "The Earth is not a sphere": the article is therefore not about a fact, but about a theory, concept, or idea. This can be said of practically any “fact” that does not merely express that something happened (which itself depends on epistemological assumptions and therefore is not “properly” a fact). Claiming that the article is about a theory rather than a fact does not reflect the scientific understanding of facts.
• There are other articles about the true form of the Earth. There are no such articles. Earth's shape is not characterizable down to the level of your definition of “fact”—because your definition of “fact” is uselessly pedantic. A few articles mention the obvious truth that Earth’s surface is endlessly textured, but no article is devoted to that; nor should any be.
• My edit made the article description slightly more accurate. Yes, but more accurate in a way less serviceable. We do not express populations of countries down to the last person (and then update them by the minute); we express them down to the level of precision useful for the concept, and we call those facts because utility is more important than pedantry.
• My edit made the article description… more consistent with the body of the article. No; it made it more consistent with the excerpts from the lede that you quoted. The body of the article, meanwhile, has large swaths that deal with the fact of Earth's sphericity, such as Effects and empirical confirmation—an absurdity if Earth's sphericity were not a “fact”—as well as how the world largely came to accept the truth (fact) of Earth's sphericity, in contrast to other models.
• There is no good justification to revert an article to a less accurate version I have justified it and I will justify it further: Precision beyond the need is worse than useless, it results in clutter. Clutter incites confusion.

I revert the edit. If I understand the intent of the editor who used the term “fact” there, it was to plant a firm stake about the truth of Earth’s sphericity so that the casual reader would understand that encyclopedias treat Earth’s sphericity as a fact, not as a peer concept to, for example, the current faddish flat-Earth model, devotees of which enact endless vandalism to Wikipedia. Strebe (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To which I append, “spherical” does not mean “having the shape of a mathematical sphere”. It means, as per dictionary definitions, “shaped like a sphere”. “Like” allows for imprecision. Strebe (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Observations mentioned in "Local solar time and time zones" are not unique to a sphere.

The main point made by the aforenamed section is that, when two cities lie on the same latitude line but different longitude lines, they will, at any given moment, experience two different local solar times.

But this is also true in the case of the most widely proposed "flat-earth" model. In that model, curves of equal latitude are concentric circles (centered on the North Pole), while lines of equal longitude are spokes that radiate away from the North Pole. The sun is allegedly only a few thousand miles from the ground, and orbits in circle centered on the North Pole. In this case too, we find that Richmond and San Francisco experience different local solar times at any given moment (as determined by the sun's angle in the sky), and in fact they're shifted by 3 hours, just as in the globe-earth case.

The particular path of the sun through the sky, as seen from either of those cities, is vastly different in the globe-earth, distant-sun model, compared to the flat-earth, nearby-sun model. But that suggests a different section (e.g. "Path of the sun through the sky"). The existence and effect of time zones, in and of itself, doesn't favor either model over the other. I therefore recommend removing this section.RickFromSpace (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As amply explained in the text, _Some of these phenomena and observations would be possible on other shapes, such as a curved disc or torus, but no other shape would explain all of them_. Strebe (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Note2 re watching sun set twice

the fact of concorde being actually supersonic is totally irrelevant and misleading and seems like the velocity of sound is somehow relevant velocity which of course it is not. Anyone is free to search concorde details. The only relevant fact is that concorde is high speed and travels faster than the apparent sun or alternately the day-night boundary line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.241.196 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

“High speed” means nothing specific, as already noted in the edit description. “Supersonic” merely refers to the class of aircraft in the way everyone does as a reminder to the reader about what Concorde refers to. The aircraft outran the sun's apparent motion westward clearly explains what is going here. Your objection seems artificial to me. Were you confused by the use of “supersonic”, or are you worried about all those stupid people you think might be out there? Strebe (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Two changes

I made two changes that were reverted. My reasoning is as follows: Regarding the first change [3], I reworded it to be in accordance with page 19 of the source [4]. The source specifically states that "we have no evidence that the idea of a spherical Earth occurred to the Phoenicians", instead of "even suggest the possibility that the Phoenicians knew about the spherical model". Second, regarding this removal [5], I meant to provide an edit summary but my finger slipped. The first sentence has nothing to do with the sphericity of the Earth, but rather belongs in Flat Earth. The second sentence is sourced to a book published by Westiminster John Knox, a Christian apologist publisher. The finding clashes with mainstream scholarship on the subject and I have removed it per WP:FRINGE. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Thanks for the comments, which I largely agree with. I can’t find any access to “The Pacific Basin”, even excerpted, so if you have the exact quote, please note it here so that we can craft an acceptable replacement for what is there. I am fine with eliminating the Hebrew cosmology. Strebe (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. The exact quote is "In spite of this and other long journeys we have no evidence that the idea of a spherical Earth occurred to the Phoenicians". So what I had added to the article is basically the same idea, suitably paraphrased. Khirurg (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Tidal Lock is an empirical proof

Can we please keep Tidal Lock section (it is supposed to be near Lunar Eclipses section)? Uchyotka (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I added a GIF to Tidal Lock to illustrate the part where Moon always shows only one side, observable anywhere (rather than different sides) - tidal lock involves Moon's lock to Earth.

The changes do not seem relevant. The article is about the shape of the earth, not the shape of the moon. Also you, repeat this information: In case of Moon, the tidal lock of Moon to Earth results in Moon always showing only one side vs Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. The new section title (Visibility of the Moon) is not correct; the text you added as about the appearance of the moon, not its visibility. Therefore, even if we were to keep what you added, it should not go there. In short, I think these edits should be reverted. Strebe (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, now I see. My core claim was "the Moon is showing its "face" side the same to everyone on Earth since ever". Editing...Uchyotka (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

*So, I made my edits. Feel free to criticize me.

@Uchyotka:

• In case of Moon, the tidal lock of Moon to Earth results in Moon always showing only one side to Earth (see animated image).

This information is not useful unless we start with the presumption of a spherical earth because the mechanism of tidal lock depends upon gravity acting in a way that would deform Earth into a sphere. If we start from the presumption of a spherical earth, then we presume the result in order to prove the result.

• It is also possible to estimate the distance between Moon and Earth by sending a radio signal to it, expecting to get an echo signal (using speed of light constant for measurment): radio signals has same speed light has.

This factoid has no relevance to the argument. Perhaps you are trying to establish that the moon is a distant? close? body, but the information here does not establish that.

• If Earth were flat, with Moon hovering above it, Moon's appearance would vary.

Vary by… geographical location of the viewer, presumably?

• You use the term flat disc twice. A disk is flat. That’s what “disk” means.
• We do not say “Moon”. We say “the Moon”.
• You ignored my comment about “visibility”. Your edit is about “appearance”, not “visibility”. Therefore, the section does not work as a subsection of “Visiblity of distant objects”.
• You need references for this material. Without references, you are violating WP:OR.

Strebe (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Hello again, Thank you for your time. Tak, ok.

• Reference where the Moon is used: this video (at 1:27, Dave explains -- the Moon doesn't change throughout the night).
  • And here's why it caught my attention: it worked on a flat-earther as a good proof.Uchyotka (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Professor Dave ignores the possibility of the moon being very distant. The tone of the video is also not civil. I left it in as a reference, but I would not be surprised if someone challenges it. Strebe (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Strebe:

Thanks for telling me about it. I won't mind if this reference will be removed/replaced since this one was one big responce to 1893 "bowl earthers", who didn't look like a circle of sophists.

Anyway, I slightly reshuffles the proofs to form a kind of hierarchy (I was reaching for chronological hierrchy, a timeline-like order).

• • On the top, I tried to concentrate evidences useful "in field" for someone who can't travel (say, to another city).

• • In the middle, I would keep something available for a medieval-era navigators.

• • The technology-related bunch, for sake of chronology, was listed last (but not least) as one (since "architecture" evidence requires high-precision laser for estimating so precise distances).Uchyotka (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) In fact, elevator-related evidence ended up to be the last because not all hi-rises have undisturbed skyline.

P.S. By the way. A hi-rise near me has undisturbed skyline (10th floor is above the trees vs 17th floor being the top floor). I want to add two of my pictures apart from YT link. How can I add pictures verified as "my own"?

Nautical Almanacs prove stars are changing locations paraghraph should be added in 'Empirical Proof'

Hi! i would like to mention that there are very detailed almanacs that sailors used since the 19th century to guide themselves. The Almanacs containg the positions of all the visible stars with accuracies to the arcseconds. The Almanacs also HAD to be accurate or else the sailors would have been lost and or crashing into rocks all the time. Looking at archives of these almanacs throught the years, it is possible to notice that stars have changed positions. This proves either that the earth is moving throught the universe or it's constant tilt. Either disprove a stationary earth. Sources: https://thenauticalalmanac.com/1911%20Nautical%20Almanac.pdf https://thenauticalalmanac.com/2021%20Nautical%20Almanac.pdf

This is not a demonstration of a spherical earth. Strebe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient India

Can I add the following in the India section:

"The Aitareya Brahmana, which is dated by Krishnamurti (2003) to c. 7th century BCE, contains verses indicative of a spherical Earth. The Aitareya Brahmana in Chapter 3, Verse 44 states that "The Sun causes day and night on the earth, because of revolution, when there is night here, it is day on the other side, the sun does not really rise or sink"."

I realize the author for one of the sources is Subhash Kak; however, the editor for the book is Helaine Selin, a famous American librarian and historian of science. She has written the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology among other things. Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not look further than Aitareya Brahmana, which demonstrates that the passage’s meaning is disputed. Concluding that the passage implies a spherical earth is WP:SYNTH. Strebe (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think it would be better if it said "...contains verses possibly indicative of a...". Is this better?Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Kak is an extremely unreliable source and has been heavily criticized by actual scholars. Just check out the sources on his page Subhash Kak. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read about how Kak is reliable and an actual scholar, and he has written extensively about Hinduism. I have read about how other scholars are Eurocentrist and then defame him because of this. Are you able to find any source that directly mentions how the Aitareya Brahmana passage does not mention a spherical earth?Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

How would this be different than bible apologists who claim that certain Old Testament verses are possibly indicative of a spherical earth? We have not permitted these controversial interpretations in the article because scholars who are not biblical apologists strongly disagree that the culturally contextual evidence supports those interpretations. It’s “possible” that people in any particular ancient culture mused that the earth might be spherical, but unless the musings became a clearly recorded cultural belief, what value would there be for the article to remark on speculations about such cases? These are not matters that a reader could adopt an informed belief about. Strebe (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that there is sufficient explanation. I do not think that Kak is an apologist; rather, I think that he just writes about topics/information that is seldom discussed. Selin was the editor also. I do not see how this interpretation is controversial because I have not read anything about how the Aitareya Brahmana does not discuss a spherical Earth. Because there aren't any writings about how this interpretation is controversial, I don't think it is controversial. This is a recorded cultural belief, as it is written down, and this Brahmana has been sacred for thousands of years. The value for the article would be that it is possible that in Ancient India at the time period that the Aitareya Brahmana was written down, there might have been a belief (at least among some Ancient Indians) that the Earth was spherical, with explanations consistent with modern science. I also think that "because of revolution, when there is night here, it is day on the other side, the sun does not really rise or sink" really clears up any confusion about the meaning of the sentences (in my opinion) because it explains: 1: how there is revolution of the earth around the sun; 2: when there is night on one side of the globe it is dark on the other side (which would only make sense if the earth is spherical); and 3: the sun does not rise/sink (which refutes geocentrism and implies that the sun does not revolve around the earth).Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The translation itself is disputed, let alone its interpretation. Regardless of how it gets interpreted, the passage does not even mention the earth or its shape; it only mentions the sun. Kak is WP:FRINGE. Strebe (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Erdapfel globe ---> main picture

I moved Erdapfel to the top of the page so the thumbnail would look ... "definitive", with a 100% 3D sphere rather than a circle. Feel free to criticize me. Uchyot (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

This article, "Spherical Earth", makes the statement, "The earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers."

However, the Wikipedia article, says the following. "Isaiah Scroll", designated 1QIsaa and also known as the Great Isaiah Scroll, is one of the seven Dead Sea Scrolls that were first discovered by Bedouin shepherds in 1946 from Qumran Cave 1.[1]

The complete text of the Bible book Isaiah is found in scroll 1Qlsaa, including Is 40:22, which translates, "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers".

The Hebrew word for circle can be translated sphere.

This scroll, 1Qlsaa has been dated to between 356 and 100 BCE, more than 800 years before the Greek reference in the "Spherical Earth" article.

This observation appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for a properly supported reference that bears on another reference found to be less accurate. This article should correct attribute the earliest reference to a spherical Earth, to the Bible.

Please correct.

GetslayneOGC (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC) GetslayneOGC (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This topic comes up periodically; it is dealt with repeatedly in the Talk archives. The passage in question is not interpreted by most scholars to refer to a spherical earth. Furthermore, 356–100 BC is after the 5th century BC, not before, and certainly not 800 years before. The requested edit must not consist of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Strebe (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)