ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

[Dan From Smithville]

Since Eratosthenes did not take refraction into account, do you agree that his results were inaccurate?

Because even if there is the most meaningless of inaccuracies, a cottage industry can thrive on that triviality?

 

[Nimos]

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?

Whether it was due to refraction or simply the lack of precise equipment I don't know, but then again his purpose what not to try to prove the shape of the Earth but the size. And he got pretty damn close.

Eratosthenes inferred that the Earth's radius was 6366 km. Both of these values are very close to the accepted modern values for the Earth's circumference and radius, 40,070 km and 6378 km respectively, which have since been measured by orbiting spacecraft.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Whether it was due to refraction or simply the lack of precise equipment I don't know, but then again his purpose what not to try to prove the shape of the Earth but the size. And he got pretty damn close.

Eratosthenes inferred that the Earth's radius was 6366 km. Both of these values are very close to the accepted modern values for the Earth's circumference and radius, 40,070 km and 6378 km respectively, which have since been measured by orbiting spacecraft.

When he claimed the world looked like this?! There comes a time when you need to stop believing whatever your textbook says and start thinking for yourself. P.S. I think there is a rule against profanity on here somewhere...

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Whether it was due to refraction or simply the lack of precise equipment I don't know, but then again his purpose what not to try to prove the shape of the Earth but the size. And he got pretty damn close.

Eratosthenes inferred that the Earth's radius was 6366 km. Both of these values are very close to the accepted modern values for the Earth's circumference and radius, 40,070 km and 6378 km respectively, which have since been measured by orbiting spacecraft.

Do you now agree with my premise that Eratosthenes did not prove the earth is a globe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

?

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

Well that is incredibly dishonest. Yes refraction is real, but to appeal to it you have to able to show how it helps you.

 

[Heyo]

You could be an AI.

"What a depressingly stupid machine." - Marvin

 

[Subduction Zone]

When he claimed the world looked like this?! There comes a time when you need to stop believing whatever your textbook says and start thinking for yourself. P.S. I think there is a rule against profanity on here somewhere...
View attachment 79948

There goes an irony meter. Where did Eratosthenes ever claim that? You need to show that he was a map maker. That appears to be just an old map of the world that Eratosthenes would be familiar with. That is not the same as saying that was his version of the globe.

You use such amazingly bad arguments that it almost looks as if you are doing this on purpose.

 

[Heyo]

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?

Do we agree that refraction is the change of the direction of a wave when it from one medium into another (with the medium changing density also counting as a change in medium)?
Do we also agree that that change of direction is dependent on the angle the wave hits the medium?
Do we also agree that different media have different refraction coefficients?
In the (or better, your) flat Earth model, what are the coefficients of the layers of air the sunlight is travelling through?

 

[Heyo]

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.

Another claim made without evidence which I will also dismiss without evidence.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Do we agree that refraction is the change of the direction of a wave when it from one medium into another (with the medium changing density also counting as a change in medium)?
Do we also agree that that change of direction is dependent on the angle the wave hits the medium?
Do we also agree that different media have different refraction coefficients?

Yes, Yes and Yes.

In the (or better, your) flat Earth model, what are the coefficients of the layers of air the sunlight is travelling through?

That changes with every passing breeze. As such, when it comes to my model, I document the observation of refraction, describe what I see, experiment with the refraction under different conditions and acknowledge that it is there without worrying about the exact numbers that constantly change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

No. That would not have been the cause of inaccuracy in his measurements. You have shown that you do not understand refraction or what causes it. There are minimal amounts of refraction at higher levels. All measurements do have a margin of error. They can be caused by all sorts of issues. At the rather high angles that existed in Eratosthenes experiment the errors due to refraction would be minimal. His main sources of errors would be from the fact that accurate machining (compared to today) did not exist in his time and his measuring devices would have introduced those errors.

Let's go over what causes refraction. It is due to a difference in the speed of light in a medium. In the air it is caused when there is difference perpendicular to the pathway of light. A uniform difference along its pathway will not change the angle. When one is measuring straight up, or even at a high angle, as he did in his test, the difference at right angles is minimal. We see refraction on the Earth at low angles when we have either a warm surface and cooling as one goes up, which causes local variations in density of the air. That causes the mirages of water on deserts. Or at sunset we have a very low angle over long distances and then the differences in density due to the density of the atmosphere come into play, which is why the sun is always "up" a bit longer than it should be. But that is not verry long at all because the Earth is rotating rather rapidly.

By the way, this is a prediction that the globe model makes and has been confirmed. The measured sunrise and sunset are about 2 minutes earlier or later than they would be on an Earth with no atmosphere:

https://collegedunia.com/exams/adva...-atmospheric-refraction-science-articleid-951

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, Yes and Yes.

That changes with every passing breeze. As such, when it comes to my model, I document the observation of refraction, describe what I see, experiment with the refraction under different conditions and acknowledge that it is there without worrying about the exact numbers that constantly change.

You need the exact numbers. Just observing that refraction exists is not enough. The exact number are how one tests a theory or hypothesis. If you cannot refute your concept by testing then by definition you do not have any evidence for it.

 

[Nimos]

When he claimed the world looked like this?! There comes a time when you need to stop believing whatever your textbook says and start thinking for yourself. P.S. I think there is a rule against profanity on here somewhere...

Given that he had no clue what the world looked like, I would say that he did a pretty good job. Did you expect him to know what the world looked like?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that he had no clue what the world looked like, I would say that he did a pretty good job. Did you expect him to know what the world looked like?

I have doubts that he even drew that map. Hmm, maybe I can Google search it.

It appears to be a modern reproduction of the knowledge of the world by people of the time of Eratosthenes. It is almost certainly not a work by Eratosthenes himself. Here is a clue for Kyle, quote a few of the objects are labeled in modern English. I have my doubts that Eratosthenes understood a language from 2000 years in the future.

 

[Nimos]

Do you now agree with my premise that Eratosthenes did not prove the earth is a globe?

Not directly, but that wasn't the purpose either, he already knew that the Earth was a globe. But according to you and I asked you this earlier as well, which you didn't answer. What did Eratosthenes try to measure according to you? If the Earth is flat and he "knew" that, why would he try to calculate the circumference of the Earth? What is the circumference of a flat earth?

 

[Heyo]

That changes with every passing breeze. As such, when it comes to my model, I document the observation of refraction, describe what I see, experiment with the refraction under different conditions and acknowledge that it is there without worrying about the exact numbers that constantly change.

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?

Who is ignoring refraction now? Without a measurable refraction index, how do you take refraction into account?

As @Subduction Zone pointed out, refraction is negligible at angles near 90° in the round earth model (and according to measurements). Would you agree to use refraction indices provided by conventional science for further calculations? If not, can you provide at least some range or upper limit?

 

[Nimos]

I have doubts that he even drew that map. Hmm, maybe I can Google search it.

It appears to be a modern reproduction of the knowledge of the world by people of the time of Eratosthenes. It is almost certainly not a work by Eratosthenes himself. Here is a clue for Kyle, quote a few of the objects are labeled in modern English. I have my doubts that Eratosthenes understood a language from 2000 years in the future.

I have no clue and don't bother checking it. Assuming that it is a map as he might have described the world or he drew it. I would be a lot more surprised had it nailed down to every detail, that he managed to just get the rough shapes correct is impressive. how he would do that, I have no clue as I doubt they mapped the Earth in such detail during that time period.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Who is ignoring refraction now? Without a measurable refraction index, how do you take refraction into account?

As @Subduction Zone pointed out, refraction is negligible at angles near 90° in the round earth model (and according to measurements). Would you agree to use refraction indices provided by conventional science for further calculations? If not, can you provide at least some range or upper limit?

I'm not ignoring refraction, I just told you I acknowledge it is there!

 

[Nimos]

I'm not ignoring refraction, I just told you I acknowledge it is there!

What?

When I wrote to you just before about just ignoring it, you replied:

I don't agree to ignore refraction. Acknowledging reality is how my flat earth model works.

And now you just acknowledge that it is there. Based on what you wrote to me, it sounded like it was crucial for the flat earth model and that is why you wouldn't ignore it, yet you never explained in which way and when asked about it directly by @Heyo you offer no explanation of why it is so important?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not ignoring refraction, I just told you I acknowledge it is there!

Acknowledging it does not help you. That is only hand waving if you cannot show specifically how it applies to the Flat Earth model.