«Aristotle accepted
the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.»
Not exact matches
Had our world not been
of a
spherical shape, had night and day not succeeded each other thanks to its rotation, life on the face
of the
earth exposed to heat would be extinct and in the portion left in the shade vegetation would not thrive.
Or more up to date, I bet NASA doesn't talk about a
spherical earth given that we now much better understand the true
shape of the
earth and many related parameters.
About a decade ago, Huggins and Nicolas Mauron
of Montpellier University 2 in France noticed that the dust immediately surrounding CW Leo formed a peanut
shape, with concentric arcs
of dust — partial
spherical shells — expanding out beyond the peanut to distances
of 25,000 times the
Earth - sun distance.
The factor 1/4 comes from the ratio
of the area
of the disk to the total surface area
of the planet (which takes into account the
Earth spherical shape and the difference between day and night).
Who would like to program the various parameters that have to be accounted for, like the slow but persistent up and down
of tides, the difficulty
of fixing a reliable reference point,
spherical geometry,
Earth shapes, collisions with whales, the presence
of inversions on comunications
of test signals etc etc..
The only substantive difference is that, so far as I can tell, the Journal
of Cosmology paper assumes a
spherical Earth for simplicity, whereas the blog post includes effects due to the actual
shape of the
Earth.