hey drowden...so you think waffling off a few names is all it takes to prove your point. ok, I'll take you on you elitist pompus twit! your argument: that zarathustra was wrong about the ancient greeks who drowden thinks ( but is not sure!)
may have discovered and proved that the earth was round, not square, flat or contained in a vaccum. Now if we were to transpose drowden's argument into a philosophical equasion it would logically not compute, in fact it would look inconclusively stupid......apart from rattling off a few names mr d offers no historical evidence whatsoever!!! and then he has the fucking gall to call me uneducated, or in his words, 'get an education for fuck sake!'...as a classically trained scholar I would like to examine the eminent names he presents as proof of his argument ( whatever that is ): Aristotle: a greek philosopher who advocated reason and moderation and also maintained that sense experience was our only source of knowledge. Eratosthenes: greek maths wizz who mapped the world containing lines of longitude and latitude and who falsely calculated the earth's circumference likening it to a cube. he also discovered prime numbers (fractions were not part of greek maths) Thales: he made a few advances in primative geometry, the main being, that because the earth was flat, it floated on water!!and that H2O was the first principle of all things -ha! ha! ha! he also, predicted the sun's eclipse.Pythagoras: famous for his theorum: if hypotenuse is is h units long and the length of the other sides are a and b then h2=a2+b2. he also assigned mystical properties to numbers and founded a religious mob that believed in immortality and the transmigration of the soul. Anaxagoras: he believed the universe originated as a formless mass ( like drowden's intellect!) and he also, I think, invented the sun dial. Heraclitus ( which drowden misssspelt) was a philosopher who believed the cosmos was in a ceaseless state of flux ( shimmy shimmy )and motion. Aristarchus first argued that the earth moved around the sun, which he believed existed inside the 'arc' (named after him) betwixt earth and the void. he was ridiculed for his beliefs by many of his colleagues....
so there you have it folks: drowden's half-baked theory put to rest, which also serves to demonstrate his need of education,
not mine...if you're not convinced, then, by all means, go to your local uni library and read the works of the abovemensioned
eminent greeks yourself, then ask yourself: did they really discover that the earth was round? ha! ha! ha! I think drowden has been getting a few lessons in philosophy from Q who is a real genius when it comes to fitting round pegs in square holes - dahhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
written by lightening for your edification
drowden's lack of education vs the greeks
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
- Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
You keep saying that.
Round pegs fit into square holes just fine.
Which brings me to this:
The mathematical problem of 'Doubling the cube', the answer to which Eratosthenes is also famed for contributing to, is completely unrelated to what he is most famed for - calculating the circumference of the globe (to a fair degree of accuracy, considering the methodology). He did not liken the Earth, or the Earth's circumference, to a cube.
Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond range of observation, in those regions rise and set.
All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent. Hence one should not be too sure of the incredibility of the view of those who conceive that there is continuity between the parts about the pillars of Hercules and the parts about India, and that in this way the ocean is one."
Aristotle, "On the Heavens," Book II, Chapter 14
This was around 350 BC. Eratosthenes calculation was around 240 BC.
It is widely accepted within academia that educated Greeks thought the Earth was spherical from around 300 BC onwards.
For your edification.
Round pegs fit into square holes just fine.
Which brings me to this:
The circumference of a cube eh!Eratosthenes: greek maths wizz who mapped the world containing lines of longitude and latitude and who falsely calculated the earth's circumference likening it to a cube.
The mathematical problem of 'Doubling the cube', the answer to which Eratosthenes is also famed for contributing to, is completely unrelated to what he is most famed for - calculating the circumference of the globe (to a fair degree of accuracy, considering the methodology). He did not liken the Earth, or the Earth's circumference, to a cube.
"The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind -- straight, gibbous, and concave -- but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical.Aristotle: a greek philosopher who advocated reason and moderation and also maintained that sense experience was our only source of knowledge.
Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond range of observation, in those regions rise and set.
All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent. Hence one should not be too sure of the incredibility of the view of those who conceive that there is continuity between the parts about the pillars of Hercules and the parts about India, and that in this way the ocean is one."
Aristotle, "On the Heavens," Book II, Chapter 14
This was around 350 BC. Eratosthenes calculation was around 240 BC.
It is widely accepted within academia that educated Greeks thought the Earth was spherical from around 300 BC onwards.
For your edification.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: drowden's lack of education vs the greeks
Why you created an entire thread to respond to me rather than doing it in the original thread is beyond me...anyhoo....
We weren't discussing the overall body of intellectual work by those I named. I'm well aware they had some loopy ideas mixed in with the quality work they did. So what's new about that? Ever listen to the gibberish some modern physiscists speak? Yes, Pythagoras was quite the religious nutter, but none of that is relevant, however, to the point about flat earth beliefs. Eratosthenes (276-196BC) had measured Earth to within a pretty fair approximation of the present value. You dismiss that as a miscalculation; I call it a pretty fair attempt.
The whole flat earth thing is an historical furphy. American author Washington Irving is mostly to blame for that.
Dan Rowden
We weren't discussing the overall body of intellectual work by those I named. I'm well aware they had some loopy ideas mixed in with the quality work they did. So what's new about that? Ever listen to the gibberish some modern physiscists speak? Yes, Pythagoras was quite the religious nutter, but none of that is relevant, however, to the point about flat earth beliefs. Eratosthenes (276-196BC) had measured Earth to within a pretty fair approximation of the present value. You dismiss that as a miscalculation; I call it a pretty fair attempt.
The whole flat earth thing is an historical furphy. American author Washington Irving is mostly to blame for that.
Dan Rowden
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
dow ol' mate...as you can see, I'm not perfect, I find it difficult to carry whole texts in my head, I conceed your point about two members of the greek academia, however, their observations, were not only inconclusive, no matter how insightful, but they were these insights accepted by the 'late' period establishment of the old greek civilization of which they were part? one thing is certain:they had not entered into popular belief...
the greeks, as a whole, had little idea of depth and perspective ( of infinity, fractions, perspective in art and so on ) their archetecture was an expression of this, their maths, their religious beliefs...as you have so clearly demonstrated ( and I thank you for that ) at least two of their brighter sparks took a peek through the keyhole, but none opened the door...so my points are still valid....
the greeks, as a whole, had little idea of depth and perspective ( of infinity, fractions, perspective in art and so on ) their archetecture was an expression of this, their maths, their religious beliefs...as you have so clearly demonstrated ( and I thank you for that ) at least two of their brighter sparks took a peek through the keyhole, but none opened the door...so my points are still valid....
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
