Talk:Figure of the Earth

Geodesy

This text is taken from chapter 1 of the public domain resource Geodesy for the Layman at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003A.HTM#ZZ0 -- please Wikify as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 May 2003

I've been reading Gordon Lauf's Geodesy and Map Projections and some of the information is different. e.g. he has Krassowsky with a major semi axis of 6,378,295 rather than the 6,378,245m quoted here, and a reciprocal flattening of 298.4 rather than the 298.3 quoted here.

Also an issue which particularly concerns me is Lauf's suggestion that in general "the geodesic has an infinite number of windings on the spherical earth", oscillating between a given latitude north and south. WHilst this may be true "in general", I would infer that there are particular examples where this is not the case and relatively short periodicitites of return can be found. Harry Potter.

article name

Since figure of the earth is an expression, shouldn't the name if this article be Figure of the earth? Kingturtle 03:12, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the 245.0, 298.3 values to be the correct ones. 85.76.129.149 20:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the title. Why isn't it called "Shape and size of the Earth"? This would be a more normal English expression. Borock (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We must use the term most often used in the references, which is "figure of the Earth". This figure is indeed its shape and size. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You learn something every day. Which is one reason to visit WP. :-) Borock (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

from PNA/Geology

• Figure of the Earth - This has been lifted from a public domain web page [1]. No problem there, but it refers to a number of non-existent diagrams. These could probably be borrowed from the same source, but they are of poor quality. --Heron 17:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The actual figure of the earth

The article describes many ways of approximating the shape of the earth, but other than the triaxial bit or the pear shape thing, the article doesn't mention what the figure of the earth is to any appreciable degree. Where are the relative high and low points of the geoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.144.27 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2007

According to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html) the earth is pear-shaped. ig 12.110.164.222 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deflection of the vertical

"The angle between the plumb line which is perpendicular to the geoid (sometimes called "the vertical") and the perpendicular to the ellipsoid (sometimes called "the ellipsoidal normal") is defined as the deflection of the vertical."

But what is the sign convention? I believe the deflection is the angle from the vertical to the ellipsoid normal. Right? Jrvz (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference direction is usually the ellipsoidal normal, hence from the ellipsoidal normal to the plumb line. In addition, the deflection of the vertical relative to the ellipsoidal normal has a north-south component ξ and an east-west component η, where north and east are positive. See Geodesy pages 218–219. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

CopyVio - Geoid

The Geoid section appears to have been copied verbatim from "Geodesy for the Layman". Item 3 of that document's Foreword says "[this document] contains no copyrighted material...". Is that enough to make this copy/paste OK? Even if the copy/paste is OK, we should acknowledge the source.

A Google search for the phrase "The geoid is a surface along which the gravity potential is everywhere equal" will find other instances, and it's not obvious which is the original. 203.176.108.99 (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Geodesy for the Layman" should certainly be cited. Documents prepared by employees of the US federal government are in the public domain. Sometimes the federal government published documents that contain copyrighted work prepared by others, used by permission. But the statement "[this document] contains no copyrighted material..." seems to mean that it was prepared only by federal employees in this case.

I don't think a single sentence, "The geoid is a surface..." is a copyright problem, so I think we can leave it alone unless we can establish that it was first published outside of Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Who knew; the Earth really is flat!JoelDick (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Spherical

No, the Earth is spherical. The radius is approximately 6.4 thousand km, with minimal variation. Yes, there is some very slight flattening at the poles, but it is pretentious, pedantic, and misleading to say it is an "oblate spheroid".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The article starts with a sphere and then discusses refinements. What is pedantic about that? Geodesists are very interested in the refinements. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, actually. I made my comment here because it seemed the most appropriate place, as the root of the topic. But I was wrong: it is not the root of problem. The presentation here is actually fine. The problem is with associated articles.

• Spherical Earth lead says: "The realization that the figure of the Earth is more accurately described as an ellipsoid dates to the 18th century".
• Earth radius lead says: "The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius." It adds that "..."radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres..." which is pointlessly pedantic and highly misleading.
• Earth#Shape says: "The shape of Earth approximates an oblate spheroid". If you go to oblate spheroid you see a diagram with extreme flattening that has no relationship to the Earth's shape at all.
• WP:Truth which started me on this quest says: "The article which describes the shape of the Earth simply asserts that it is an oblate spheroid."

In fact, they should all reflect what it says here in the lead: "the sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; please go ahead and harmonize the leads. There's even the story of the Earth being rounder/smoother than a billiard ball to support your point: [2] fgnievinski (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard rounder than a ping-pong ball and less wet...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, your comments are hyperbolic (viz., "no relationship at all", "pointlessly pedantic", "highly misleading"). The comments about smoothness are irrelevant, and the comment about "flattening at the poles" is incorrect. The earth isn't only "flattened at the poles"; it is an ellipsoid, to within a hundred meters of mean sea level everywhere. Its deviation from a sphere is three orders of magnitude greater. The fact of the earth's ellipsoidness is crucial to geodesy, and it is also fundamental to the value chosen for "a radius", which you would understand if you understood the Earth radius article. I do not support these proposed edits yet, not without a lot more nuance on verbiage and purpose, and will revert any that reflect this hyperbolic crusade. Strebe (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference between polar and equatorial radii is less than half a percent of the global mean radius, see Earth radius. fgnievinski (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is that relevant Strebe (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As I admitted above, this article – "Figure of the Earth" – is OK. It's the other article that are problematic. For most intents and purposes, the Earth is spherical. I am not going to argue the point whether the "true" shape is oblate spheroid or an ellipsoid. I stand by my other comments. The descriptions of the Earth as not a perfect sphere are pedantic and highly misleading. These articles are supposed to be read by laypeople.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Then fix the Earth#Shape description, if that's what bugs you most. I disagree with the rest of your comments. All the other cited articles deal responsibly with the sphere/ellipsoid distinction. Improvements are always welcome. Just be aware that your own need to think in two decimal places doesn't reflect mapping needs over the past two hundred years. Strebe (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In re "why is that relevant": it depends on the map scale. If you consider visual acuity is no better than 0.5 mm on a sheet of paper, then you can safely make a world map assuming a spherical earth. It's only for maps covering small areas (larger scale for the same sheet of paper) that ellipsoidal earth matters. If you find the explanation in terms of paper maps outfashioned, most numerical weather models still assume a spherical earth. It's only for topographical and cadastral mapping (air- and space-based photogrammetry and ground-based surveying) that the ellipsoidal shape applies. fgnievinski (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all true, and still not relevant. Just because some maps don't care does not mean the topic is not important; does not mean distinguishing between ellipsoidal and spherical is pointlessly pedantic or highly misleading; does not mean an image of an oblate spheroid "has nothing to do with" the real shape of the earth. I agree Earth#Shape ought to start with the fact that a sphere approximates the shape of the earth closely... but on the other hand, everyone already knows that, so who's pointlessly pedantic here? Strebe (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think most maps -- not just some -- need no ellipsoidal complication. Take school maps, for example. In truth, the earth is not even ellipsoidal, but more deformed -- but not so exaggerated as often conveyed to the layperson, e.g., [3]. I think we can reasonably say it's only for geodesists and surveyors that ellipsoidal earth matter. For most everyone else -- geographers, meteorologists, aviation folks -- spherical earth suffices. fgnievinski (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It matters to everyone, in that the products and services depending on precise mensuration of the earth matter to everyone. As for “not ellipsoidal”, that’s the truly pointless observation. •Obviously• there are mountains and seas and trenches. None of that detracts from the fact that mean sea level deviates from an ellipsoid by less than a hundred meters anywhere on earth. It’s the simplest regular shape that describes the earth’s surface with high accuracy. I’m rather done discussing whether or not that’s “important for most people”. It’s important. Nobody advocates emphasizing how spherical the earth is not. The question is whether the articles are balanced. Strebe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter to everyone, in that the products and services depending on precise mensuration of the earth do not matter to everyone. Most people only take a glance at maps, don't ever measure distances or areas or azimuths. As for “not ellipsoidal”, that’s the truly essential observation, in that you should not insist that the earth is actually an ellipsoid. In order of increasing accuracy, it's a sphere, a spheroid, the geoid, then the topographical/bathymetric relief. Which one is best? That depends on the application, if you're interested in horizontal positions only or vertical positions too, etc. You can't say "[The ellipsoid] It’s the simplest regular shape that describes the earth’s surface with high accuracy", but you could say "The spheroid is the simplest shape that describes the earth’s surface with 100-m accuracy" as well as "The sphere is the simplest shape that describes the earth’s surface with 0.3% accuracy." fgnievinski (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Accurate property lines, airplanes that fly where they are supposed to (and using minimal fuel), GPS navigation, all matter to "most" people who are likely to read these pages. I think, at this point, you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and therefore I am done. The purpose of this page is how to improve the article, not to provide a forum for endless blathering. I stand by my assertion that the objections to characterizing the earth as ellipsoidal are hyperbolic. If you have edits to make, make them, and if those edits dilute the purpose of the pages, I will dispute them. Strebe (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My perspective is that as a kid I "discovered" that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, then I found that actually it was more spherical than a ping pong ball. In most cases, saying that the Earth is not a sphere is excessively pedantic to be point of being misleading. These articles should be written for laypeople.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s not “more spherical than a ping-pong ball”. Where did you get that notion? Meanwhile these articles are written for lay people. How many articles do you want whose purpose is to say, “The earth is a sphere?” The reason those articles exist is because the earth is not a sphere. Strebe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the article the deviation is only approximately 0.3%, and see the link about billiard balls above. I guess most ping pong balls have seams so they are noticeably less smooth than the Earth. Is there a factual here that is in dispute?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, if you were to fit an ellipsoid (or rather, a spheroid) to a bunch of billiard balls -- estimate polar and equatorial semi-major axes from metrology measurements -- the flattening or eccentricity would be greater than the Earth's. Therefore, the Earth is more spherical than a brand-new billiard ball. Smoothness/roughness is a different property, as the finish might have small-scale random surface topography, although it doesn't affect the best-fitting ellipsoid. fgnievinski (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove Oblate Spheroid

The Image of an Oblate Spheroid on this page is a gross exaggeration of the oblateness of Earth. Its a bad example, misleading and confusing and it should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengelhardt (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The caption says it's an oblate spheroid; it doesn't say that it's the earth. It's exaggerated deliberately, so that people can get a feel for what's meant by the term, as the actual oblateness of Earth is impossible to visualize. However, it should not be placed at the top of the article, but in the section discussing what an oblate spheroid is. I will add it back there. — Gorthian (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, for the reasons explained above.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• I disagree as well, and agree with moving the image. The image caption already states that the figure is highly exaggerated. Nobody is going to be confused by this. Meanwhile the image makes clear the geometry of the flattening. Strebe (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Restore article name

User:Bobbie73, please restore this article to its name Figure of the Earth, which is a term of art. Figure of Earth is not idiomatic; nor does it appear in the technical literature. The article's name is now broken and does not mean what the article was written about. Thanks, by the way, for your other edits in related articles. Strebe (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Since User:Bobbie73 has not reversed the inappropriate move, I have done so. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Pear?

Neil Degrasse Tyson is some sort of US TV chap. Apparently he's described the Earth as a "pear-shaped oblate spheroid". Is there a source for this? Is it accurate? I understand why the Earth would be oblate, but why "pear-shaped"? What's the mechanism for that? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is explained in this very article in “More complicated shapes”. Strebe (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I've just added more sources to Figure_of_the_Earth#Pear_shape. fgnievinski (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why was Earth Curvature Autocad Chart Removed?

Why was my autocad chart removed? vandals? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth%27s_Curvature.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengelhardt (talk • contribs)

Find the edit that removed it and read the rationale? Strebe (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason I deleted it from Bedford Level experiment. It goes beyond the small values of theta for which the formula is useful, and adds little or no relevant information to this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The title of this page is "Figure of Earth" That was an image of the Earth using autocad to visualize the curvature. There's an image of a stupid oblate thing on here that is not even close to what the earth's curvature looks like. How is somebody getting away with that and I can't have an autocad chart featuring Earth? I'm putting it back up. Steveengelhardt (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Who drew that thing, anyway? On the Wikimedia Commons description page, you claim it is your own work. If that is so, who is "M. Kahnke," and why does that name appear at the bottom of it?

If you are in fact the author of this image, you can explain why you chose to mention autocad at all, and why you chose to label the trig formula as an "Excel" formula. I've never met a mathematician who felt it was important to mention the degree of hardness of the pencil he worked things out with. That would not impress other cognizant mathematicians.

That image is full of chartjunk, the graphic equivalent of word salad. It carries an aroma of cargo cult science, with stylish features but elementary, trivial content. I can see it being used in a flat-earth context as an example of "things globies believe, but we know better" Literally, I see it used on pages hosted at Eric Dubay's site, at the Atlantean conspiracy site, and at your own flat earth wiki.

"Other stuff is allowed to stay" is a deflection, and a weak defense of iffy content on Wikipedia. What does the image in question add to this article? How is it relevant here? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with leaving this image out. It does nothing to further understanding of the article's subject, and its presentation is confusing in purpose and content. Mostly the attempts to add it into diverse Wikipedia articles feel like a vanity project. It is also WP:OR. Who is going to check the accuracy of that chart? Checking the accuracy of original material is not the job of Wikipedia editors, but keeping such artifacts out of articles definitely is. Strebe (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion from the commons, as a possible copyright violation, along with the derivative image, commons:File:Earth's Curvature.jpg. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Flat earth material

User:GliderMaven has twice copied a pile of material from the Flat earth article. This material has several problems.

• The term figure of the earth is a geodetic term. It does not, and never has, referred to a flat earth model.
• At the top of the page, the article already states, For the historical development of the concept, see Spherical Earth and Flat Earth, in order to distinguish cognitive models from the topic of this article.
• We do not copy sections between articles. The Flat earth article exists to talk about the history of the flat earth model. This copy/paste adds nothing to the topic and risks getting out of sync with the material it was copied from.
• The article already mentioned that small parcels can be treated as flat; it does not need a digression into archaic conceptions of a flat earth.
• Although flat earth models are often used for small areas a far more accurate model for the shape of the entire Earth is clunky English and misleading in content. There is no relationship between "flat earth models" and ignoring earth's curvature for purposes in which the curvature is irrelevant. They're two entirely different concepts.

I have reverted this edit again and will challenge its inclusion if attempted again. Strebe (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Restore it. It's two paragraphs, and it's an undeniable part of the history of the figure of the Earth. Even as late as the medieval period, works of geographical topography like the Mappa Mundi, rather than astronomy, were still using a flat earth model - even long after the Greeks. Also as the section notes, it's still favoured by "pre-scientific societies", or post-scientific societies such as the contemporary USA. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my points. And no, mappa mundi are not maps founded on a flat earth model. Pre-scientific societies have nothing to do with the geodetic term of art "figure of the earth". These concepts are addressed in other articles as noted at the top of the page already. The fact of "two paragraphs" is not relevant. Strebe (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is another big problem with the flat earth edit: It adds history of something that is not the topic, but meanwhile there is no history of what is the topic. It's editorially incoherent. Strebe (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And last, none of the references that use the term figure of the earth or figure of earth mention the archaic flat earth model. Injecting flat earth stuff into the article is WP:SYNTH.

• What follows directly after it? "The simplest model for the shape of the entire Earth is a sphere." which is just incorrect. A two dimensional plane is simpler - and that's why it was adopted beforehand. To even get as far as a simple sphere we first had to realise that our original flat model was incorrect.

The geometry of mappae mundi and their flat/spherical basis is a topic of modern dispute. Speaking for myself, I see the earlier T-O form, where the border is oceanic rather than antipodean, as still fundamentally flat. They're not some Aristotelian hemispherical earth, nor are they Crates' divided uncrossable sphere. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not our place to debate the cosmography of mappa mundi; claims of ambiguity only disqualify their relevance here, not enhance it. Despite the sphere’s simplicity, it is •still used• as a model, and reasonably so: not because we mistakenly believe the earth to be a sphere, but because the sphere is a useful model for the entire earth. A plane is not a useful model for the entire earth and is not included in the geodetic term of art “figure of the earth”. This article is not about the history and development of humanity’s conception of the earth’s shape. The plane isn’t even a unique precursor to the spherical model, so injecting it into the article as if it were special and as if the models represent some historical, logical progression, would be wrong. Strebe (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the context of this article, which is modern geodesy, the "simplest model for the shape of the entire Earth" is indeed a sphere. Projecting the entire surface of this round planet onto a flat plane introduces distortions. The wide variety of historical and modern projections shows that such mappings are far from simple. A globe, spherical to within reasonable tolerances, provides a fair representation of the general shape of the Earth for many purposes. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Figure of the 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/20051023083444/http://www.pcigeomatics.com/cgi-bin/pcihlp/PROJ%7CEARTH+MODELS%7CELLIPSOIDS%7CELLIPSOID+CODES to http://www.pcigeomatics.com/cgi-bin/pcihlp/PROJ%7CEARTH+MODELS%7CELLIPSOIDS%7CELLIPSOID+CODES

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)

More complicated shapes subsection

This subsection: Figure_of_the_Earth#More_complicated_shapes

I have one question: is it still a matter of controversy? When was the controversy settled if not at all? I'm certain that the Earth's shape is well documented. --Foia req (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Foia req: Yes, it's settled, as explained in the article: "Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution as a reference ellipsoid and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure". In other words: non-spheroidal Earth is represented by the geoid. fgnievinski (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's circumference which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Columbus and the pear shaped earth

The cited reference apparently says Columbus speculated the Earth was pear shaped, it is not possible for him to have known this. The Earth is indeed pear-shaped (discovered by exquisitely precise satellite observations), but at a level of one part in a MILLION, tens of meters at distances and lengths of millions of meters. Columbus was on a heaving ship with plumb-bob on the end of a string, thousands of kilometers from the place where it deviates from a sphere. The cited reference information flies in the face of physics, the history of science, mathematics and logic; authors have been know to be wrong. Columbus could not have measured this ppm effect in his time with his equipment and his situation, if he claimed to, he was guessing/just-wrong/misunderstood. How would he even measure it, he was millions of meters from the point of deviation? His speculation was just that, unsubstantiated speculation, just random noise that meaning can be read into, like the predictions of Nostradamus. This does not belong in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff: if he claimed to, he was guessing/just-wrong/misunderstood. How would he even measure it, he was millions of meters from the point of deviation? His speculation was just that, unsubstantiated speculation, just random noise that meaning can be read into, like the predictions of Nostradamus. That part is true. This does not belong in Wikipedia. That part is false. Columbus is robustly documented to have speculated that the earth was pear-shaped, even if his his methods were inaccurate and his beliefs superstitious. The article shouldn’t give the impression that Columbus’s belief was competent, but it is wrong not to note the first documentation of the belief. Strebe (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff: The insignificance of the deviation is a technicality which could use more focus in the article. How many meters of variation from a perfect sphere does this imply, for instance? Then the reader will be able to see/interpret for themselves how impossible it was for Columbus to actually observe. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The insignificance of the deviation IS THE ESSENCE. He could not have measured it. NO. NO. Not 20 meters on a 6,000,000 meter sphere, at that time with his string and weight. And I told you, the variation is 10's of meters on a sphere of radius more than 6,000,000 meters. At the parts per million level. He could not. I was not aware it was Wikipedia's habit to put BS in an article and then justify it by "the reader should be able to see it as BS". That's kind of brain-dead. Duuhhhh.

Ok, I surrender, I give up. Leave in the mote of bullshit in this article, I don't care anymore. The people that matter will recognize it and think less of Wikipedia for it, and the others don't matter. The gargoyles occupy the cathedral, and I don't give a furry rat's butt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: The current text, Making observations with a quadrant, he "regularly saw the plumb line fall to the same point," instead of moving respectively to his ship, and subsequently hypothesized (ludicrously) that the planet is pear-shaped, is nothing I can document. If it appears in the cited work, it’s the author’s invention, as far as I can tell. All the references I find have Columbus speculating on religious/cosmological/confused grounds, not from measurements. A mention should remain, for the reasons given, but not this business about measurements. Strebe (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it being shortened somewhat, but I don't think it's the author's "invention". I believe other sources mention his use of a quadrant in the matter. Not every source discusses every last detail of his voyages. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The current text must go. It's meaningless gibberish, which gives no insight, not even a false insight, as to what Columbus was thinking. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Strebe: I think you're correct, the author put this into Columbus's mouth (as far as I can tell), rather than quoting his journals as I assumed. My bad. We should definitely ditch the quote. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd:I don’t think these new edits help. I’m again skeptical of “measurements”, given that my own searches show that Columbus was actually motivated by religious/cosmological/confused/hopeful beliefs. If anything about his methods is noted, it should be about that, not about measurements. Measurements, if they happened at all, could not have shown a pear shape in the first place, and in the second place, the pear-shape that Columbus believed in was perpendicular to the pear shape that can be teased out of modern measurements. That means that Columbus’s belief is not related to the modern understanding. It’s fine to note his belief in the pear model and that it’s the first known expression of the belief, but it has to be clear to reader that there is no connection between his and modern thinking. Strebe (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Strebe: Well it avoided citing the inventive author and cleaned up a bunch of confusing word salad. If you think you can improve it, feel free to make the improvement. Why do you assume his model was "perpendicular"? UpdateNerd (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t “assume”; I looked into it. He posited a pear shape because he couldn’t figure out where all these new lands he was finding fit into his conception of a spherical world. So, he decided that the new lands were a continent hanging off of China on a bulbous lobe, making the earth pear-shaped with the stem, if it were present pointing away from the equator. He rationalized this by saying that the earthly paradise is closer to the sky than the rest of the world, and that biblical sources say that the earthly paradise is in Asia. The modern understanding of the (extremely faint) pear shape is that the stem would rise from the north pole. Strebe (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's very interesting, but it's difficult to make any sense of Columbus's model. He only said it pointed towards Heaven, and he's entirely inconsistent about whether he talking about Eden (which he already said was in South America, which he believed was Asia), or the celestial "heavens" above. The simplest interpretation is that it would be at one of two poles (since he based his model on the apparent difference of Polaris's diurnal motion). But there's too much ambiguity to assume anything. A primary source would be helpful, since authors clearly like to editorialize upon the subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So I go away for a few days, and people slowly and convolutedly seem to realize the whole thing WAS wrong. And I can put my old copy of King-Hele back on my bookshelf. Inertia of wikipedia = rotational inertia of a pear shaped earth. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What kind of mess would Wikipedia be if it were based on people’s undocumented assertions? Because I know something about geodesy and something about 15th century instruments and something about Wikipedia, it was clear to me that Columbus didn’t credibly measure his way into a belief about a pear-shaped earth. So, when you called attention to the offending passage, it was obvious to me that (a) you were right about the measurement; and (b) you weren’t right that the mention needs to be deleted. Thank you for calling attention to the problem. We’ll get it fixed properly. Strebe (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Geography and astronomy?

@Fgnievinski: Thanks for this edit; most of it looks like improvements to me. However, satisfactory for geography, astronomy seems problematic. Unless we are talking about world maps, a spherical model generally isn’t suitable for geography. I’m even less clear on what the mention of astronomy could amount to. I think leaving it open-ended was better — especially for the lead paragraph. Strebe (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference between geodetic latitude and geocentric latitude is irrelevant in those areas. Geography mostly deals with small-scale maps, whose map projections can and often assume a simplified spherical Earth model. In astronomy (except for radio astrometry), the difference between equatorial and polar radii is not important. We already give examples of the fields where the spherical model is inappropriate (navigation, surveying, cadastre). fgnievinski (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree that geography “mostly” deals with small-scale maps. Even if (by some semantics) it is “mostly”, it would have to be overwhelmingly small-scale in order to reasonably make such a statement. I don’t think “overwhelmingly” could possibly be defended. It seems like we should just say “small-scale mapping” rather than stating something so controversial without citing it. For the case of astronomy, I guess you mean that a telescope’s tracking system (mount) needn’t account for earth’s deviation from a sphere? Strebe (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if were going to be picky, I'm afraid the other examples will have to be removed, too: celestial navigation doesn't need a spheroidal Earth, surveying can be done in small regions assuming a locally flat Earth, and there are cadastres based on ground markers without coordinates.

Since there is no section discussing the limits of application of each model, and the lead should not cover material absent in the article (MOS:LEADNO), I'd be in favor of removing all fields of study from the lead. fgnievinski (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)