Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Why don't you directly agree with the premise that Eratosthenes didn't prove his claim?
Do you not agree with mainstream science when they claim this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!
- Thread starter Flat Earth Kyle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #flat earth
Do you not agree with mainstream science when they claim this?
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
"I don't agree to ignore refraction" means "I do not ignore refraction."
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Me directly taking refraction into account.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? He did prove that the Earth was round. Please note, the Sun does not change size. On a Flat Earth the Sun would have to change size because when one is directly under it it would be larger. The observation that the Sun does not change size with his two points does shown that the Earth is round. There are often other issues that support one's argument than just the obvious ones.
And as I said "So what?" He gave us a way to test whether the Earth is a globe or not. We can use the same test with the North star and we do not need to wait for any particular day. We can do it every single night. Time after time. Any three points using the North star and knowing the north south distances between them tell us that he was correct.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No please, Post your formulas. Post your model and how it is tested. Posted videos are not evidence. They very often only demonstrate the ignorance of the maker.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Off topic, that is a rule 4 violation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Whether the Earth is observable to be a globe appears to be right on topic.
EDIT: Looking at the video the speakers are Russian, so I have no clue as to what they are saying and some of the "curvature" is definitely due to lens effect. You should have watched and claimed that it did not support a curved Earth.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Here is one with Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michelle Thaller, and Bill Nye, on the very topic that the Earth is not flat and showing just how easy it is to prove it effectively debunking the notion of a flat earth.
That is what your op is all about. Providing the actual proof. Isn't it?
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
My OP is specifically about whether or not Eratosthenes proved the earth is a globe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? It has been shown how his test could do just that. Your only response to the problem of three points was handwaving. At this point since we have dealt with the opening claim almost anything to do with the Flat Earth is still on topic.
Heyo
Veteran Member
So, I will also acknowledge it is there and set the refraction index to 0 for all practical purposes and allow a 1% error margin because of it.
Assuming your flat Earth model and using Eratosthenes' historical date we can calculate:
Distance Alexandria Assuan: 5000 stadia
Angle at Assuan: 90°
Angle at Alexandria: 83°
Therefore angle at the sun: 7°
The sides of a triangle relate to the sinii of the opposing angles.
sin(7°)/5000 = sin(90°)/hight of the sun | re-arrange
hight of the sun = 5000 * sin(90°) / sin(7°)
hight of the sun = 5000 / 0,122
hight of the sun = 41028 stadia
= ~ 636 km ± 2%
Do we agree so far?
The sun has an apparent diameter of 1° which makes it about 11 km in diameter.
Cape Town is ~ 7000 km away from Assuan.
sin(x) / 636 = sin(90°) / sqrt(7000² + 636²)
x = ~ 5.2°
I.e. the sun rises 5.2° above the horizon at noon on the 21th of June in Cape Town.
Does it though? Can you calculate what a refraction index would be necessary to get to the right angle?
Oh, and
the distance to the sun from Cape Town is 7030 km, the sun has a diameter of 11 km.
That makes
7030/sin(90°) = 11/sin(x)
x = 0,01°
the sun appear to have a diameter of 0.01 degrees. And here, no refraction will help you.
Debunked.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
In what way are you representing my flat earth model?
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Zero is the opposite of acknowledging it as being there!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may have a point. You do not appear to have model. Right now we know that you have never shown any evidence for it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not. Zero is a possible value for refraction. We can explain why it was at or very close to zero for Eratosthenes. I doubt if you can support it being different.
Heyo
Veteran Member
In what way didn't I represent your flat earth model?
You haven't introduced a clear model so I had to make due with what you have presented.
My only assumption where a zero curvature of the Earth's surface, as proposed by you, the existence of some historical places (you haven't refuted in your critique of Eratosthenes) and the existence of a sun which you also didn't deny.
The rest is simple trigonometry. You don't deny the existence, correctness and usefulness of maths, do you?
So as you try to knock down science as if it is inconclusive, remember, the flat-earth model isn't even good enough to be a hypothesis. In fact, earth is a planet.
Heyo
Veteran Member
As @Subduction Zone pointed out, zero is different from an empty set. I acknowledge it is there, I just made a reasonable assumption that the refraction index is small (=0) for the ease of calculation. If you think it is relevant, please show your calculations and that they lead to significantly different outcomes.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
That is just a bunch of hot air, it doesn't refute anything I said and holds no persuasive power. Go cry somewhere else.