Talk:Flat Earth

Thomas Aquinas does not mention a spherical earth

The article says:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth and took for granted that his readers also knew the Earth is round.

But the source which is given does not mention a spherical earth. Aquinas says that both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round, which is not necessarily spherical. Why does the text then say Aquinas believed in a spherical earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular. It is the accusative feminine singular of rotundus, which means round, spherical, globular, just as round does in English. It’s clear that it means spherical in this context because the physicists and astronomers he refers to had demonstrated the earth to be spherical, not merely disk-like, as per the references St. Thomas himself gives. There is no scholarly controversy over the meaning of this sentence. Strebe (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the people Aquinas quotes proved the earth to be spherical. Round does not imply spherical. When I say the table is round it is clear that the table is not spherical. When Aquinas or people he quoted said it was round they could just have meant it to be a round disk. Before it has been proven that the meaning is spherical it should not be mentioned as such in the official page. Retonom (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing English language semantics. As Strebe explained, the writing was in Latin, where no such semantic ambiguity exists. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing English language semantics. "rotundus" in Latin can also mean circular so my argument is valid. You can find the proof here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rotundus#Latin :

1. round, circular

2. spherical, rotund Retonom (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

By relying on Wiktionary translation (or any translation, really), you're back to applying English semantics. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. A translation is not English semantics. Semantics is about the meaning in a specific language. Translation is not semantics. In addition to that, Strebe said: "The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular." This is incorrect, as Wiktionary proves, it also means circular and don't tell me again, that to say what a word in another language means is semantics. Please let someone answer who understands the subject. Retonom (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument you are attempting to build is plainly a semantic one, and, per WP:NOR, misplaced here. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I've added a secondary source with directly supports the claim as well, which I trust settles the matter. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

On top of that, both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round does not make any sense if "round" means a circle as opposed to a square. How would astronomers or physicists prove such a stupid thing? It was clear from the beginning that this is a WP:CIR thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm making an argument and you cannot refute it. Instead you cite vague "semantics" and you invoke the argumentum ab auctoritate logical fallacy. There's is really no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have a clue about proper arguments. Retonom (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That is out-of-context bullshit of the type a chatbot would write. There was no "ab auctoritate" reasoning anywhere here. Even if it were, Wikipedia is built on reliable sources and not on your "arguments". Read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Article full of globe bias

Yeah.. That's plenty of that. DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should be about the flat earth but in fact is serves more to make assertions that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, silly, unscientific or whatever is brought up to discredit the flat earth. This is not how it should work. The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. From what I perceive the people that are in charge here do not want an objective view of the flat earth to be available to the general public, since they delete even comments on this talk page that point out flaws in the article. Let's see if this comment is deleted again, which would prove my point... Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to "both sides" of an argument, like it seems to me that you propose. Pseudoscientific opinions should not be shown as valid statements of fact. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more on this topic. Sjö (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. Except, it doesn’t do this. The lead paragraph is be heavy with such statements, but asserting that the entire article is that way discredits your premise for me. The lead paragraph ended up that way because a lot of other editors were concerned that the older text might give someone the impression that belief in a flat earth could be scientific. Strebe (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) The “scientific” arguments against flat earth use non-scientific propaganda language, which undermines the credibility of scientific claims. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Suggest inclusion of actual scientific evidence for rejecting flat earth. Perhaps a method for measuring the size of the globe from the ground using observations of shadows cast from identical rods at various locations at an agreed upon time, sextant, etc. 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:69A9:7:436:85ED (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) The Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth article does that, and is linked to. That’s where it belongs; duplicating it isn’t good editorial policy. Strebe (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Then what is the value of the logically fallacious propaganda language? 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:C505:3F7A:6DE3:752F (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Isn’t fallacious, so I can’t answer your question. Strebe (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Please remove the "St." in front of "Thomas Aquinas", per MOS:HON/MOS:SAINT. His status of sainthood in the eyes of the catholic church is wholly irrelevant here. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article take a stance?

The sky is blue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The flat earth belief may, or may not, have credence. In either case, is it necessary for the article to reveal the stance of the author? Would a neutral presentation of facts not better let the reader reach the correct conclusion? Throughout history, there have been many, many scenarios in which the "consensus" was wrong and the minority was correct. While I personally do not believe that is the case with flat earth, what is the benefit of wikipedia taking a stance? Reading this article, I do not care what the authors of the article think (yet I am battered by their beliefs). 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Hi. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and they do not support flat earth theories. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica - they say the same stuff [1]. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) But why not state what the reliable sources say (with links) and then state what the flat earthers say. Reading this article, I wanted to understand what flat earthers actually believe in, and why. I could not do that when the article, from the onset, says they are wrong and unequivocally dumps on them. It means I need to go to some other site to learn the context / history here. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) As an encyclopedia, it is obligatory for Wikipedia to describe utter nonsense as nonsense, and not to pretend that it has any credibility or basis in fact. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Because fringe beliefs are not given equal time for the obvious reason that people should not be led to suppose that a false belief could be right. The shape of the earth is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact as much as anything else is. We don’t give “neutral” presentation to alternative beliefs about the temperature and pressure at which water boils, or any of millions of other facts. What we do is report that some people believe false things. When we say “fact”, we do not mean an assertion that could not change regardless of how reality is constructed. It is true that the earth might not be spherical if existence is only a dream or if we are some kind of highly controlled simulation. It not true that the earth is flat if the normal assumptions about existence are true: There is no rigorous experiment that could demonstrate such a thing, and limitless experiments that demonstrate otherwise. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Well, no one actually does dispute the temperature at which water boils. If some large group of people did, i would expect (want) wikipedia to present their views without stating, from the onset, and in wikipedias voice, whether wikipedia thinks they are right or wrong. That does not mean both sides are given "equal weight". If one side has the overwhelming support of science and consensus, the sources will show that and the reader can naturally reach that conclusion himself. You said wikipedia has an obligation to describe nonsense as nonsense. But why? Can the reader not make that conclusion himself? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) There is so much nonsense out there, if Wikipedia operated in the way you suggest it would be choked with irrelevances. The article on the Moon will not seriously entertain the idea that it is made out of cheese, because Wikipedia's core mission is to summarize the best available sources, not the best available sources and then also all the cranks who happen to disagree. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) But this is not an article about the earth; it is specifically about flat earth belief. Similarly, i agree moon article should not mention cheese theories; but an article about cheese theories would... 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Proof for the curvature to be removed since it is wrong

The box states that: "An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth"

The towers in the foreground are only partly hidden, whereas those a bit further away are almost completely hidden. The towers in the front are not very far away from the towers in the background, this is evident from the size since they would have to be much smaller if they were much further away. This cannot be due to the curvature since the curvature could not make objects so close to each other disappear in such a way. If it was the curvature the effect would have to be much smaller. This is therefore no proof for the curvature. Either the picture is fake or it is some optical effect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs)

The further ones are several kilometers away from the nearer ones. At any rate, we cannot take action based on your personal analysis, see WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The earth's curvature is much less than what is shown here. It can be calculated here: https://earthcurvature.com/

The towers are 157m high. Even if the towers would be 10km apart it would only account for a curvature drop of 7.85 meters. This makes it very clear, that the claim presented here is not proof for the earth's curvature. The towers cannot disappear like that due to earth's curvature. Quod erat demonstrandum. Retonom (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone that uses the phrase "ball Earth" when they aren't joking can't really be taken seriously. There's a reason that site doesn't allow you to account for any other variables. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, refraction might be a noticeable factor for the whole distance of 50km from the observer. But we are talking about the distance between the towers. One tower is 1.5km apart from each other. Even if we take the distance from the nearest tower to the farthest tower we get only 9km. Over these 9km the curvature drop would be only 6.36 meters. The rotor diameter is 126 meters. On the picture half of the rotor of the tower on the left is almost completely hidden. This means that there should be a curvature drop of around 63 meters which is 10 times more than the curvature drop would be for the whole windfarm from front to back. Refraction only makes very slight difference on such a distance. You can calculate this here: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

On 9km this would be less than 1m. Retonom (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that you can see the complete rotor on the tower of about the same size on the right side. So the curvature drop from this tower to the tower on the left should be about 60m but in reality it can only be about 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm. Retonom (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot that the surface already started dropping in the first 50 km, so the drop is more than that. See Horizon#Objects above the horizon for the formulas and an explaining image. Sjö (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No I didn't forget this. I'm only speaking about the difference between the towers and how much the curvature drop would have to be between the towers and this should match the image but it does not. Instead of around 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm the picture shows a difference of around 60m which cannot be accounted for with curvature. That is why this picture does not prove the earth's curvature. Why this exactly happens I cannot tell. Retonom (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And to be able to say something about the whole distance to the farm we would need to know the observer height. Otherwise the curvature cannot be properly calculated with a calculator like this for example: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

The picture only gives the distance to the windfarm and is therefore is not suited to serve as proof for the curvature since it cannot be verified. Retonom (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. When I plug in an observer height of 40 m, an object height of 150 m and the distances 50,000 and 60,000 m I get a difference in hidden height of about 50 m, which fits pretty well with the image. Of course we don't know the exact distance or the observer height but I can find no reasonable combination of values that will give a difference of only 6 m. Again, thanks for the tool that proves you wrong. Sjö (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason behind the different numbers is that you ask the question "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 0 to 10 km" when you should be asking "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 50 to 60 km". Sjö (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See above. Your reasoning is irrelevant because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on what you think. You are in the wrong place; go to some forum or publish in a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)