Debunking Flat Earth wiki: Eratosthenes on Diameter

This is the link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

I am here to prove that Eratosthenes's method is exclusive to a ball Earth, first, I will start with a fact check: Alexandria and Syene (modern day Aswan) are NOT on the same meridian. Here is the proof from wikipedia, Alexandria has a longitude of 29°53′33″E while Syene has a longitude of 32°53′59″E.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan

Now, the goal of Eratosthenes is to measure the circumference of the Earth. with that knowledge, one can find the radius of Earth. On a round Earth, one can choose any two location that does not share the same latitude since there will always be one great circle passing through them. On a ball Earth, all great circle have the same length.

On a flat Earth, things will get different, not all lines connecting two points on the Earth pass through the center of the circle (I will take it as north pole because the "monopole model" seems to be more popular among flat Earthers). In this case, the line connecting Alexandria and Syene certainly does not pass through north pole because they are not on the same longitude line.

Now flat Earthers, what does that means? That means this experiment cannot be used to figure out the "radius" of your disk world, maybe try with two places that actually shares a longitude line

Haven't looked at the site to see exactly what it says, given how wrong it usually is on basically everything. But:

The method is not exclusive to points at different latitudes.
It is quite general, you can use any 2 locations.
What you need to know is the distance between them, along the surface, and the angle of elevation of the sun for each point.

Using that, along with the fact that the sun is very far away, you can calculate the radius/circumference/diameter of a spherical Earth.

Alternatively, using the false assumption that Earth is flat, you can determine the height of the sun.

You can also use a method where you only look at the angle of elevation at solar noon. This takes away the error in timing. But this does require the points to be at different latitudes, and you need to know the distance between those latitudes rather than the points themselves.

But regardless of if it goes through the north pole or not, that can't give you the diameter of a flat Earth.
There is no mathematical connection.

Not to mention this method is under the assumption of parallel rays from the Sun, which is impossible in a flat Earth since the Sun is much closer to the Earth than the round Earth model.

The distance of the moon is found by calculating the distance of the sun. Because the distance of the sun is considered the same as the distance of the moon, and the diameter of the sun is considered the same as the diameter of the moon. I used the expression "confirmed" because we did not go to the moon and since we deny that we went to the moon, we can only find this by calculation.

Most flat earth researchers calculate the distance between the sun and the moon from the earth as 3000 miles. I calculated it a little closer than this, but I stated that this value could be acceptable. The diameter of the moon and the diameter of the sun (if I remember correctly) are 50 kilometers. If I remember incorrectly it could be 5 kilometers.

3000 miles and 50 kilometers are not a suitable parameters to generate parallel rays for the Sun.

Also I would like to see how Mr. Tom Bishop answer this.

Not to mention this method is under the assumption of parallel rays from the Sun, which is impossible in a flat Earth since the Sun is much closer to the Earth than the round Earth model.

Yes, as I already said.
If you instead use the assumption that Earth is flat, you calculate the height of the sun, based upon non-parallel rays.

The Sun moves in an arc, not a ball Earth under it.

Why are rainbows shaped as arcs?

The arc of our Firmament is why they’re arc shaped. It reflects light to Earth, after rainfalls.

The Sun moves in an arc, not a ball Earth under it.

The relative motion of the sun is an arc, which can be extended to a circle, going below Earth.
That can be from the motion of the sun or Earth.

Why are rainbows shaped as arcs?

Because the raindrops refract light at particular angles, making them appear at a certain angular distance away from the sun, which makes them an arc.
You can even do this with a hose spraying water droplets.
Nothing to do with any of your delusional BS.

And notice how this has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand?

The Sun moves in an arc, not a ball Earth under it.

Why are rainbows shaped as arcs?

The arc of our Firmament is why they’re arc shaped. It reflects light to Earth, after rainfalls.

So you're saying that pretty much everything is or moves in an arc except the earth itself?  That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

The Sun moves in an arc, not a ball Earth under it.

Why are rainbows shaped as arcs?

The arc of our Firmament is why they’re arc shaped. It reflects light to Earth, after rainfalls.

I am having trouble to understand this post (probably because I am a dumb globe Earther who is paid by NASA everyday to make your life miserable), but what does the movement of the Sun help to explain this? In this theory, morning and afternoon will be hotter since the Sun is closer to the disk world, it is not observed here.

As I have pointed out, an Eratosthenes experiment is perhaps the easiest and cheapest way to disprove the RE available, assuming FE is a reality.

Yet no FEers are even slightly interested.

One wonders why that is.

Actually, no, one wonders not. It is obvious.

As I have pointed out, an Eratosthenes experiment is perhaps the easiest and cheapest way to disprove the RE available, assuming FE is a reality.

Yet no FEers are even slightly interested.

One wonders why that is.

Actually, no, one wonders not. It is obvious.

Its almost like the experiment was performed by Taoist flat earthers far earlier, and it proved the earth flat.

Its almost like you are like 30 years too late to the party and have to do your reading.

Though yeah, the wiki is shit.

That's why we let them do it. I'd love to hear Bishops thoughts on it too. But I guess we all know those.

Its almost like the experiment was performed by Taoist flat earthers far earlier, and it proved the earth flat.

Its almost like you are like 30 years too late to the party and have to do your reading.

In science, 2000 year old hearsay of an alleged experiment being performed is not a reason not to perform said experiment.

Quote from: Username on December 10, 2024, 09:49:08 PM

Its almost like the experiment was performed by Taoist flat earthers far earlier, and it proved the earth flat.

Its almost like you are like 30 years too late to the party and have to do your reading.

In science, 2000 year old hearsay of an alleged experiment being performed is not a reason not to perform said experiment.

Truth has no expiration date. There's your Bishop for ya.

Also, its not heresay, its a difference of axiom. Fuck read the paper before you decide to be a dumbass to a confederacy of idiots.

Also, its not heresay, its a difference of axiom. Fuck read the paper before you decide to be a dumbass to a confederacy of idiots.

So you're saying now that the result is an axiom, i.e. an assumption, not the result of an experiment?

That's not a good reason not to perform an experiment.

You really should try reading first, friend.

You really should try reading first, friend.

I read your post. That is how I was able to reply substantively to it.

How do you interpret "the results of an experiment"? Why was Galileo unjustified until Opticks? Seriously, if you are going to bring it to the fucking Flat Earth Society, bring a proper argument before you lost your spaghetti.

We are here to help, though and to defend. Bring a proper argument and I'll be happy to admit the flat earth is wrong, and shut the whole society down. Until then stop wasting my time. We have shit to do.

We are here to help, though and to defend. Bring a proper argument and I'll be happy to admit the flat earth is wrong, and shut the whole society down. Until then stop wasting my time. We have shit to do.

Why doesn't the Flat Earth Society perform an Eratosthenes experiment, thereby presumably disproving Round Earth?

That is my argument.

Quote from: Username on December 10, 2024, 11:16:10 PM

We are here to help, though and to defend. Bring a proper argument and I'll be happy to admit the flat earth is wrong, and shut the whole society down. Until then stop wasting my time. We have shit to do.

Why doesn't the Flat Earth Society perform an Eratosthenes experiment, thereby presumably disproving Round Earth?

That is my argument.

We have. Every school child has.

The issue isn't the data. The data can be interpreted in different ways. Look up Kuhnian revolutions in science, or just post modernism in general.

Here's a really bad poster to illustrate the issue:

ffs

Count the mistakes that made us throw out this printing plate. There are at least 3. Non of them are factual. Cause we are just funnier than you, and righter than you.

Sorry I said this earlier, but also - you fucking dumbass.

We have. Every school child has.

The issue isn't the data. The data can be interpreted in different ways. Look up Kuhnian revolutions in science, or just post modernism in general.

Here's a really bad poster to illustrate the issue:

No, not every schoolchild has performed an Eratosthenes experiment, that is easy to prove. It is generally not within the abilities of a schoolchild to do so either.

It must be assumed that you are therefore not being truthful where you claim FES has done the same, otherwise, where is the report?

Its almost like the experiment was performed by Taoist flat earthers far earlier, and it proved the earth flat.

Its almost like you are like 30 years too late to the party and have to do your reading.

That no more proves Earth is flat as the original proves Earth is round.

If you want people to read, you could at least provide a link that isn't behind a paywall:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248721548_A_Chinese_Eratosthenes_of_the_Flat_Earth_A_Study_of_a_Fragment_of_Cosmology_in_Huai_Nan_Tzu

And did you read it?
He states that the passage was likely not in the original work, and due to the choice of distance used the result was meaningless as they did not have accurate enough measuring devices for it.

But the main limitation of this kind of experiment is just using 2 points.
This leaves the problem unconstrained, where by changing the distance to the sun you can change the radius of Earth.

However, by taking many locations, you can solve that problem and show Earth is round.

I literally linked a thousand year old report on it. The Eratothenes experiment was common before the advent of the destruction of the education.

The hopefully obvious point I'm making is that it isn't about the gather of data but the interpretation, context, ouvre, and then realization of it.

I say it a lot but I need to figure out what books you haven't read, because there are apparently a lot.

You lot don't remember before Alexandria. lol.