ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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?

You are the one who claimed to be representing my flat earth model, the burden of proof is yours to use direct quotes in demonstrating you are representing my flat earth model. I don't see any direct quotes, so I don't see anything to substantiate the claim that you are representing my model.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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.

Do you agree that a fish in a fish tank appears magnified due to refraction
and that this still happens at a 90 degree angle?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you agree that a fish in a fish tank appears magnified due to refraction
and that this still happens at a 90 degree angle?
View attachment 80001 View attachment 80002

Sorry, but this is a red herring and shows that you probably do not have a proper model. A fish in an aquarium looks slight closer than it actually is. But the index of refraction in water is much much higher than that of air. Worse yet, the higher one gets the thinner the atmosphere is. So the very very tiny amount of refraction caused by the atmosphere vertically can be safely ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just a bunch of hot air, it doesn't refute anything I said and holds no persuasive power. Go cry somewhere else.

No, it proves that you have no evidence for your model. Too bad that you never understood the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[Heyo]

You are the one who claimed to be representing my flat earth model, the burden of proof is yours to use direct quotes in demonstrating you are representing my flat earth model. I don't see any direct quotes, so I don't see anything to substantiate the claim that you are representing my model.

You aren't behaving like an honest interlocutor. Just claiming that I used a straw man isn't helpful. Don't you want to defend your "model"? Tell me exactly where in my calculations I made assumptions you hadn't intended. Answer question (like the one if you agree that, according to your "model", the sun is 363 km up and 11 km in diameter). Isn't that your "small local light source"?
I did the maths that would have been your duty to provide.

Here's the quotes I used:

The Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a small local light source.

View attachment 79844

That is all what you have presented of your "model". From looking up "Eratosthenes experiment" I got the numbers I used. From the picture on the left in the green circle, I got the geometry.
That "model" is thoroughly debunked.
If you think that didn't represent your "model", provide a better one.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

That is all what you have presented of your "model". From looking up "Eratosthenes experiment" I got the numbers I used. From the picture on the left in the green circle, I got the geometry.
That "model" is thoroughly debunked.
If you think that didn't represent your "model", provide a better one.

That is not true, I quoted Neil deGrasse Tyson who agreed that it would work over a flat surface and pointed to his diagram that showed this.
Neil Tyson then said it wouldn't work with a 3rd well. I disagreed and showed how it could very well work with a 3rd well just fine.
I also described how my model acknowledges how the light from the sun does not travel in straight lines through the atmosphere which will disrupt straight line measurements.
You say your math proves Eratosthenes right, but just because 2x2= 4 doesn't mean a yardstick is 4 feet long.
Your math might add up correctly, but so long as it doesn't accurately describe reality it is invalid.

 

[Heyo]

Do you agree that a fish in a fish tank appears magnified due to refraction
and that this still happens at a 90 degree angle?
View attachment 80001 View attachment 80002

Note that the light from the fish is travelling from a much denser medium (water) to a less dense medium (air).
The light of the sun would have to travel from a near vacuum to slightly more dense air. I.e. it would appear even less big. (Though with angles of much less than 1° and the refraction index of air it is barely measurable, let alone visible.)

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

View attachment 80006View attachment 80006
Note that the light from the fish is travelling from a much denser medium (water) to a less dense medium (air).
The light of the sun would have to travel from a near vacuum to slightly more dense air. I.e. it would appear even less big. (Though with angles of much less than 1° and the refraction index of air it is barely measurable, let alone visible.)

I'm not seeing an answer to my question. Do you agree or not?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

View attachment 80006View attachment 80006
Note that the light from the fish is travelling from a much denser medium (water) to a less dense medium (air).
The light of the sun would have to travel from a near vacuum to slightly more dense air. I.e. it would appear even less big. (Though with angles of much less than 1° and the refraction index of air it is barely measurable, let alone visible.)

The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson directly said light going from the extreme vacuum of space into our atmosphere is going to refract like light going from air into water. Do you disagree with him?

 

[Heyo]

The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson directly said light going from the extreme vacuum of space into our atmosphere is going to refract like light going from air into water. Do you disagree with him?

I don't. But you didn't get what I was saying. In your example with the aquarium light goes from water into air, not from air into water.
Got it now?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I don't. But you didn't get what I was saying. In your example with the aquarium light goes from water into air, not from air into water.
Got it now?

Why don't you agree with Neil Tyson? Do you not acknowledge him as one of the leading experts regarding the globe earth model?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

In your example with the aquarium light goes from water into air, not from air into water.
Got it now?

The aquarium example better demonstrates my flat earth model since it includes a dense firmament above our heads.
But either way, both my flat earth model and Neil Tyson's globe earth model currently acknowledge celestial refraction.
My main point being just because something appears directly over our heads, that doesn't mean it isn't being refracted.

 

[Heyo]

That is not true, I quoted Neil deGrasse Tyson who agreed that it would work over a flat surface and pointed to his diagram that showed this.
Neil Tyson then said it wouldn't work with a 3rd well. I disagreed and showed how it could very well work with a 3rd well just fine.

You didn't. You made a drawing showing another shadow.
I did the math with the third "well" in Cape Town, showing that a flat earth model would lead to different angles than a round earth model and I showed that the apparent size of the sun would be way off.

I also described how my model acknowledges how the light from the sun does not travel in straight lines through the atmosphere which will disrupt straight line measurements.
You say your math proves Eratosthenes right, but just because 2x2= 4 doesn't mean a yardstick is 4 feet long.
Your math might add up correctly, but so long as it doesn't accurately describe reality it is invalid.

My maths doesn't describe reality because it is based on the false assumption of a flat earth.

By the way, you again didn't answer my questions. Do that again and earn a cosy place on my ignore list.

Just to remind you: do we agree that, in your model, the sun is about 11 km in diameter and about 363 km above the Earth?

 

[Heyo]

Why don't you agree with Neil Tyson? Do you not acknowledge him as one of the leading experts regarding the globe earth model?

Your reading comprehension is so abysmal that I slowly lose my patience.

Do you disagree with him?

I don't.

You ask if I disagree, I say "no" and you accuse me to disagree? Wtf?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Your reading comprehension is so abysmal that I slowly lose my patience.


You ask if I disagree, I say "no" and you accuse me to disagree? Wtf?

I see the double negative now, you don't disagree with him, which means you agree with him.
So we both agree that refraction still happens at a 90 degree angle above our heads.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see the double negative now, you don't disagree with him, which means you agree with him.
So we both agree that refraction still happens at a 90 degree angle above our heads.

The problem is that you do not seem to have a model.

 

[blü 2]

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?
View attachment 79970

Why in your opinion did Eratosthenes' experimenters find the shadows of were of different lengths at the same time of day?

If you repeated Eratosthenes' experiment today, would you expect to find the shadows to be of different lengths?


And grateful if you'll explain to me in your own words why it's cold at the poles and hot at the equator when on your flat earth the distance from the sun and the angle of incidence of the sunlight are virtually identical for each.

 

[exchemist]

I see the double negative now, you don't disagree with him, which means you agree with him.
So we both agree that refraction still happens at a 90 degree angle above our heads.

Nope. (I know you say you've got me on Ignore, but this reply may at least help other readers disentangle any confusion you may have created.)

The degree of deflection of a light ray depends on how far the angle of incidence at the interface between the 2 media departs from 90deg, cf. Snell's Law: Snell's law - Wikipedia

At 90deg there is zero deflection. However, as the light progressively moves farther from making a 90deg angle, the deflection increases. For light entering a higher refractive index medium from a lower, the deflection is back towards the vertical.

It is this progressive deviation, with change of angle of incidence, that causes the magnification. See diagram below, taken from physics stack exchange:Why would an object appear a different size when in water?

 

[We Never Know]

The Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a small local light source.
The Eratosthenes experiment depended on all the light from the sun being parallel, but even the globe model claims it is not!
View attachment 79844

You are a dream come true for some posters here lol

 

[exchemist]

You are a dream come true for some posters here lol

Certainly! But a fair amount of it is like shooting fish in barrel The hope is that at least some of the wrong arguments are worth exploring a bit. The anti-Einstein, one for instance, was not trivial.