ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

[Flat Earth Kyle]

We are not talking about NASA alone, we are talking about all space agencies and all scientists who have the knowledge and means to disprove the globe earth. Scientists who are very open and talkative about their work, who are dedicated to increase knowledge, not spooks who are comited to secrecy.

No. There could be one in the future but today there is no alternative that has even a fraction of the evidence supporting it. The round Earth is the best model we have.


I don't want to multiply threads about bat**** crazy conspiracies on RF, so, no, I don't want to talk about it in another thread. But I'm willing to look at a paper in a respected science journal if you link to it here.


The fact that there is no absolute truth doesn't mean there are no absolute lies.
That's how I can tell you that you are wrong. Absolutely wrong.

You don't appear to want to talk about OP and appear to be trying to distract away from it...

 

[Nimos]

So you are saying "science never proves anything" and "Eratosthenes scientifically proved the earth is a globe" at the same time?
Please tell me you see the contradiction there!

No, that is not what I wrote.

And I already explained to you that it doesn't work in absolutes. If you take a rock and drop it a million times from a height of 10 meters and it keeps falling to the ground, we can say that we have proved that a rock will fall to the ground. That doesn't mean that the rock couldn't suddenly fly into the air if conditions changed. So science doesn't conclusively say that a rock will always under all conditions fall to the ground, simply that based on our tests, there is no reason to assume that a rock will not also do this the next time we drop it under similar conditions when we have no data or observation indicating that a rock occasionally flies into the air.

As I wrote to you in one of the other posts, it would be silly to live one's life as if the rock would occasionally fly into the air, if there is absolutely no evidence for it doing so, even though it might be theoretically possible.

 

[Heyo]

You don't appear to want to talk about OP and appear to be trying to distract away from it...

You don't appear to want to talk about your claim that infrared photography substantiates your previous claim any more and appear to to be trying to distract away from it...

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You don't appear to want to talk about your claim that infrared photography substantiates your previous claim any more and appear to to be trying to distract away from it...

I've published a ton of content on that topic, as I said I would be happy to demolish you on that topic - this thread is not the place for it though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Foucault's pendulum never proved the shape of the earth, if you want we can open another thread and talk about it there.

It actually does as it wouldn't work if the Earth was flat. The fundamentals of physics would have to be radically redefined and rewritten. Such as magnets. Compasses fundamentally would not work as the needle pointer would not, in many locations, render an accurate reading. Such as if start at a cordinate of -10,0 (on a scale of ten), and facing north your compass will read a north eastern direction, with the point to tbe east being more strong and direct as you move north.
Square or round, the compass will not be accurate unless you are exactly in the middle of this hypothetical world. The needle would point towards the northern pole, but it not actually be the direction you're going in.
This is easy demonstrated with a magnet and needle and thread, where the needle will point towards the magnets but not be reflecting that your are facing forwarrd as you move it left to right.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

No, that is not what I wrote.

And I already explained to you that it doesn't work in absolutes. If you take a rock and drop it a million times from a height of 10 meters and it keeps falling to the ground, we can say that we have proved that a rock will fall to the ground. That doesn't mean that the rock couldn't suddenly fly into the air if conditions changed. So science doesn't conclusively say that a rock will always under all conditions fall to the ground, simply that based on our tests, there is no reason to assume that a rock will not also do this the next time we drop it under similar conditions when we have no data or observation indicating that a rock occasionally flies into the air.

As I wrote to you in one of the other posts, it would be silly to live one's life as if the rock would occasionally fly into the air, if there is absolutely no evidence for it doing so, even though it might be theoretically possible.

I asked you if you agreed with the premise that Eratosthenes never proved anything about a globe.
You said no - even though you have expressed the belief "science never proves anything."
That appears contradictory to me.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

It actually does as it wouldn't work if the Earth was flat. The fundamentals of physics would have to be radically redefined and rewritten. Such as magnets. Compasses fundamentally would not work as the needle pointer would not, in many locations, render an accurate reading. Such as if start at a cordinate of -10,0 (on a scale of ten), and facing north your compass will read a north eastern direction, with the point to tbe east being more strong and direct as you move north.
Square or round, the compass will not be accurate unless you are exactly in the middle of this hypothetical world. The needle would point towards the northern pole, but it not actually be the direction you're going in.
This is easy demonstrated with a magnet and needle and thread, where the needle will point towards the magnets but not be reflecting that your are facing forwarrd as you move it left to right.

We can argue about the pendulum somewhere else. Please don't distract from the OP of this thread and stay on the topic of Eratosthenes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That only shows how little you appear to know about the flat earth. Please don't distract from the OP of this thread and stay on the topic of Eratosthenes.

Disagreeing with your original post is distracting from it and going off topic?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

@Nimos 3 holes are not an issue on the flat earth.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Disagreeing with your original post is distracting from it and going off topic?

Your disagreement says nothing about the Eratosthenes experiment.

 

[exchemist]

We are not talking about NASA alone, we are talking about all space agencies and all scientists who have the knowledge and means to disprove the globe earth. Scientists who are very open and talkative about their work, who are dedicated to increase knowledge, not spooks who are comited to secrecy.

No. There could be one in the future but today there is no alternative that has even a fraction of the evidence supporting it. The round Earth is the best model we have.


I don't want to multiply threads about bat**** crazy conspiracies on RF, so, no, I don't want to talk about it in another thread. But I'm willing to look at a paper in a respected science journal if you link to it here.


The fact that there is no absolute truth doesn't mean there are no absolute lies.
That's how I can tell you that you are wrong. Absolutely wrong.

 

[Nimos]

@Nimos 3 holes are not an issue on the flat earth.
View attachment 79940

You can't just post a single image like that and draw some lines, of course, it's going to fit itself

If we have an image like that and we assume that the angle is the same.

Then we move the holes a bit.

Now there is a clear distinction between the shadows. You might be able to move the sun to fit two of them, but from what I understand it will not fit with 3 holes and besides that, one can't simply move the sun around, as the experiment has to work with a fixed one.

But maybe @Subduction Zone can elaborate on that, as he seems to know more about this than I do

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You can't just post a single image like that and draw some lines, of course, it's going to fit itself

View attachment 79943
If we have an image like that and we assume that the angle is the same.

Then we move the holes a bit.
View attachment 79944
Now there is a clear distinction between the shadows. You might be able to move the sun to fit two of them, but from what I understand it will not fit with 3 holes and besides that, one can't simply move the sun around, as the experiment has to work with a fixed one.

But maybe @Subduction Zone can elaborate on that, as he seems to know more about this than I do

1st Your, "clear distinction" isn't very clear.
2nd, you've made a mistake in drawing straight lines. As Neil deGrasse Tyson explained in the OP, the earth has an atmosphere that causes light to bend similar to a straw in a glass of water. Please do feel free to tell me you disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I love it when globe earthers throw him under the bus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are saying "science never proves anything" and "Eratosthenes scientifically proved the earth is a globe" at the same time?
Please tell me you see the contradiction there!

I would think you could explain that and provide much of what you claim as example. You call it "science". You claim it is all a done deal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolute truth isn't referring to "applying to all time." I am currently wearing shorts. This is a provable absolute truth. I will eventually change into some pants, but that doesn't change the fact that at this very moment I am wearing shorts.

Not to us it isn't. Your claim of shorts is just a claim. You might be covered in chewy coconut, glitter or garden spiders for all I know. There isn't even absolute proof that you are a person. You could be an AI.

 

[Nimos]

1st Your, "clear distinction" isn't very clear.
2nd, you've made a mistake in drawing straight lines. As Neil deGrasse Tyson explained in the OP, the earth has an atmosphere that causes light to bend similar to a straw in a glass of water. Please do feel free to tell me you disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I love it when globe earthers throw him under the bus.
View attachment 79945

But wouldn't the refraction apply to both models?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

But wouldn't the refraction apply to both models?

By all means, do tell me when and where you claim Eratosthenes took refraction into account. The fact that he didn't take refraction into account is part of what proves him and all his fans wrong.

 

[Nimos]

By all means, do tell me when and where you claim Eratosthenes took refraction into account. The fact that he didn't take refraction into account is part of what proves him and all his fans wrong.

No, what I mean is, that neither of us is going to take refraction into account, it is not exactly the most precise illustration being used here and no calculations are being made . So if we can agree to ignore refraction unless it is required for the flat earth model to fit?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

No, what I mean is, that neither of us is going to take refraction into account, it is not exactly the most precise illustration being used here and no calculations are being made . So if we can agree to ignore refraction unless it is required for the flat earth model to fit?

I don't agree to ignore refraction. Acknowledging reality is how my flat earth model works.
Since Eratosthenes did not take refraction into account, do you agree that his results were inaccurate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've published a ton of content on that topic, as I said I would be happy to demolish you on that topic - this thread is not the place for it though.

Can you just cite the papers so that we can review them all at our leisure?