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)

In the context of classical Latin, and romance languages in general, "rotundus,-um" can mean both round and spherical, but generally means a spherical shape when referring to the earth (or any tri-dimensional thing). To mean something is round and flat, "circularis,-is" is typically used. "Sphaericus,-i" (spherical) is a late latin word derived from Greek. But to be blunt, if it wasn't obvious, Thomas Aquinas points to an spherical earth by talking referring to hemispheres: "...sicut simul dum sol est in puncto orientis, illuminat nostrum hemisphaerium" (Summa Contra Gentiles 2;38-9). Hemisphere means "half a sphere". Canilla92 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Proof for the curvature to be removed since it is wrong

OP indef blocked O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) It's not what I think. I showed it to be true based on calculations. The image also does not say how much the observer height is. The curvature drop cannot even be reliably calculated for the 50km. Furthermore, where is the reliable source for the image and the claim? There is nothing. So it is like that: according to my demonstration the towers are a max of 9km away from each other. The curvature can only account for about 6m drop for 9km but we can see a 60m drop. So the image is probably fake. My evidence stands against an image with a claim with no evidence, no reliable sources, no reliable picture and you have the impudence to call my reasoning irrelevant. Because of people like you Wikipedia is based on unverified claims like this, the exact opposite of what you claim. And my valid objections you just brush off with "irrelevant reasoning". Retonom (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Solar system

Do those who subscribe to the Flat Earth theory believe that only the Earth is flat, or are some/all planets in our solar system also flat ? I think the article should clarify this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See: Modern flat Earth beliefs O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a flat earther myself, but my friend is. He personally believes that every planet is flat. He won't listen to my reasonings, and I'm honestly unsure if he's being genuine or not, so take it with a grain of salt. Fastestbeanintheuniverse (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Is archaic the right word for the lead

Is it really archaic as people knew earth was a sphere (not quite right as earth is really an oblate spheroid) for thousands of years so would just saying just it’s outdated be more accurate? Legendarycool (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How does (some) people knowing for thousands of years that the earth is spherical have anything to do with whether or not a flat-earth model is “archaic”? Strebe (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

People discovering that the earth is a sphere in the 5th century BCE would make the idea of a spherical earth also archaic (by most definitions of the word).

P.S I just feel the current lead is just to emotive rather than just stating the facts?

P.P.S I’m not a ‘flat earther’ (think that’s the right word) so I. Just trying to improve this page. Legendarycool (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anything is considered archaic if it is also considered current. The normal connotation is that the thing or idea is old and obsolete, having been replaced by something more modern. I think it’s the perfect word for the use. Strebe (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think archaic is ok because "outdated" seems stronger and judgmental. Archaic, means old fashioned and is merely talking about something that used to be viewed as acceptable in the past. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just think that outdated would be more clear and logical word and that archaic in my opinion seems far more emotive and judgmental. Legendarycool (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok but archaic seems more neutral. Something can old fashioned to us, but acceptable to people from the past. I think "outdated" would be an anachronism, no? Ramos1990 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what’s happening here is, I have a different perception of these words, you are correct from your experience with these words, but I’m correct from my perception of said words. I don’t really know what to do as we both are trying to communicate one message with separate words? Maybe have Archaic/outdated but thats clunky. Legendarycool (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead does say "scientifically disproven" so I think your connotation of "outdated" is caught there, no? Archaic is used to designate past time periods like Archaic Period. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok archaic does work well enough. Legendarycool (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes

hello, I suggest changing "More recently, flat earth theory has seen an increase in popularity" to "Since the 2010s, flat earth theory has seen an increase in popularity". it's a clarification that seems necessary to me for the article to be timeless. the two articles cited as sources for the resurgence of this theory date from the 2010s.

I would also like to propose the following change: change "only 82% of 18 to 24 year old respondents agreed with the statement "I have always believed the world is round"." to "only 82% of 18 to 24 year old American respondents agreed with the statement "I have always believed the world is round".". the study was carried out only on Americans: https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious

I would have liked to make these changes myself but my account is not auto-confirmed. GloBoy93 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Strebe (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)