Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
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!
-
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
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!
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Light from the sun radiates out in all directions from every point on the sun.
If it were parallel one would only be able so see the sun at a point on the beam thst the "parallel light" travels.
However the sun is many times larger than earth and a long way away so the light reaching earth from the sun can be seen as parallel (ish)
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
In theory it could, but a "small local light" would also give different results in countless other observations and experiments (for example, variations of seasons and day length I'd raised with you on another thread - will you deem that on topic on this thread?).
You are mistaking (or misrepresenting) intentionally simplified diagrams for the complexities of reality. Light from a light source like the Sun travels in every direction, so individuals "rays" of light will arrive at any given point on Earth in both a straight line from the very centre of the Sun and a (slight) angle from the edges of the Sun (there is also scattering of light in the atmosphere too). It is still perfectly possible to measure the overall path of light from the Sun at different points on the Earth and thus calculate the relative distances and positions.
(Oh, and FYI, large font and coloured text doesn't make your statements any more accurate or valid, it's just unnecessary)
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
We can talk about the seasons over on the firmament thread - the seasons are partially dependent upon the firmament.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
That is not what is meant with an absolute statement and I think you already know that. By absolutely one refer to making a statement which is considered to be absolute. "God created the universe for instance". The shape of the Earth being spherical at the moment is not absolute, because at some point Earth will be destroyed, but the current shape is that of a sphere.
No.
According to you what did Eratosthenes measure? Because as far as I know, it was the circumference of the Earth. What is the circumference of a flat Earth?
Do you agree that the distance from the sun is quite a lot (~150 million km)? yet in all your images not only is the sun approximately the same size as the Earth but it is right next to it, despite it being 109 times bigger.
Why not check whether the flat earth idea works when using the correct sizes and distances and placing the measuring sticks at different distances and see if it holds up? Because I'm pretty sure that they won't.
Yazata
Active Member
Right. He provided evidence that it was.
What's more, he calculated the size of the Earth from his data (and a little geometry) and arrived at a figure that isn't all that different from modern calculations of the size of the Earth. Which given his time and place, is very impressive.
In my opinion, the word "prove" is often misused. Proofs are things found in mathematics and logic. And their conclusions are only as certain as the (often questionable) premises from which they are deduced. So called "scientific proofs" aren't typically proofs at all, they are arguments based on evidence and reasoning (such as induction and abduction) that don't establish conclusions with deductive certainty. So that's why I don't believe that Eratosthenes' (very good) argument rises to the level of a proof.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
I don't think that Biblical firmanent theories are in any way consistent with orbital mechanics or with space flight.
exchemist
Veteran Member
He wasn't trying to. He already knew it was a globe and was trying to estimate its dimensions.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That picture is fake.I don't think that Biblical firmanent theories are in any way consistent with orbital mechanics or with space flight.
It must be, together with all other pictures and other evidence from space. At least according to the conspiracy theories of literalists and flat earthers. A conspiracy that united US and SU even trough the cold war.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's round.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Foucault pendulum - Wikipedia
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The firmanent is the Cosmos. It's definitely there even if the word has largely fallen out of usage.I don't think that Biblical firmanent theories are in any way consistent with orbital mechanics or with space flight.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
I don't think that Biblical firmanent theories are in any way consistent with orbital mechanics or with space flight.
We were united before that, but that is another story.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Foucault's pendulum never proved the shape of the earth, if you want we can open another thread and talk about it there.It's round.
Foucault pendulum - Wikipedia
Heyo
Veteran Member
It is part and parcel of your story.
When the SU started Sputnik, the US and the whole world conspired to not call them out.
When Gagarin orbited Earth, nothing happened either.
When Nasa put men on the moon, the SU and the whole world conspired to not call them out.
Can you estimate how many people must be in on the conspiracy? Otherwise intelligent and honest people who have sworn an oath to never tell the truth about the shape of the Earth?
"If you claim science never proves anything then you must admit there is no scientific proof the earth is a spinning space ball and that the earth could be flat."
Science never proves a theory but science disproves hypothesis. The flat earth hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
If you claim the globe earth has not been proven, there must be an alternative.
Your claim that the flat earth has been disproven is provably false. Infrared photography substantiates my claim.
We can talk about that on another thread if you like.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
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!
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%
- though that is completely off topic in this thread. I wouldn't mind talking about it in a new thread though.
NASA's fakery is one of my favorite topics.
Heyo
Veteran Member
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.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
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.