The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Entropic Muffin on November 04, 2009, 11:41:36 PM
-
Earatosthenes measured the circumfrence of the Earth On June 21 2200 years ago. In Alexandria Egypt. He had to make two measurements of the angles made by shadows at two different locations. Syene and Alexandria. If the Earth was flat.Then, there would be no shadows cast by both sticks at different locations. Given that the Sun is overhead at noon. But, there was a shadow cast at Alexandria at noon. While there was no shadow cast at Syene. That can only happen to a planet if the shape is round. So a helper helped him measure the distance between Alexandria and Syene (800km). From the shadow lenght in Alexandria,the angle A can be measured. But,from simple geometry if two parallel straight lines are transected by a third line,the alternate interior angles are equal. Angle B equals angle A. So,by measuring the shadow lenght in Alexandria,Eratosthenes concluded that Syene was A = B = 7 (seven degrees is (7deg/360 deg) or1/50th the circumfrence of the Earth ) away on the circumfrence of the Earth. Eight hundred kilometers * 50 is 40,000 km. So,that's the circumfrence of the Earth.He was the first person to measure a planet.
Any FE wanna have a crack at this?
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
-
more measurement points need to be acquainted for to be sure that the earth is round and not flat.
same situation (different shadow sizes on different places) would occur even on a flat earth, since the sun is not infinitely far away.
3 measurement points should be enough if you know the distance to the sun.
-
if you know the distance to the sun.
-
Earatosthenes' experiment can also tell us the distance to the flat earth sun, in addition the the FE's diameter, if we use his figures under the assumption that the earth is a plane.
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
Earatosthenes' experiment can also tell us the distance to the flat earth sun, in addition the the FE's diameter, if we use his figures under the assumption that the earth is a plane.
Eratosthenes also assumed that light travels in a straight line. The problem with doing the experiment when assuming a flat earth is that the results keep changing as you make observations from different locations and plug in different angles and base lines.
-
Eratosthenes only tried to measure Earth, assuming a spherical Earth and a very far away Sun, both of which were already known with a reasonable level of certainty by better learned people of the time.
What is not explained by any "FE theorists" is the well known fact, corroborated by most navigators since at least the last 500 years, that traveling 60 nautical miles due North makes all celestial bodies appear 1 degree further South. In a sense, this is Eratosthenes' experiment repeated in all latitudes, by navigators from all over the world, too many times to count. In fact, the sextant, the most important navigational equipment of last millennium, is based on this observation.
A flat Earth and any assortment of hypothesis set out in this forum can explain one, or a few observations like Eratosthenes' but no FE hypothesis yet can even start to explain why this observation, made from any place on Earth, gives the same result ( 1 degree every 60 NM) and simultaneously why the Sun, Moon, planets and stars all have about the same brightness when they are close to the zenith with respect to when they are close to the horizon.
-
Earatosthenes' experiment can also tell us the distance to the flat earth sun, in addition the the FE's diameter, if we use his figures under the assumption that the earth is a plane.
If you repeat this experiment at different latitudes you get a different "distance to the sun". That, in itself, destroys your notion that this experiment serves your purposes. If an experiment gives different values for something that in your model is "constant", then your whole model is useless and wrong.
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
The answer is 800/(Sin(7.5))=6129 km, or 3809 miles.
This answer is already more than 800 miles farther away than predicted by the FE "model" and becomes much, much worse when the experiment is repeated at several latitudes and compared.
-
if you know the distance to the sun.
Actually you don't need to know the distance to the sun.
A good enough approximation exists without incorporating this distance.
-
if you know the distance to the sun.
Actually you don't need to know the distance to the sun.
A good enough approximation exists without incorporating this distance.
that's partly incorrect. in calculations within the RET, we can approximate the distance to the sun to infinity, thus making all sun beams parallell to eachother. but in FET, the sun is fairly close, and such an approximation would be too inaccurate.
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
The answer is 800/(Sin(7.5))=6129 km, or 3809 miles.
This answer is already more than 800 miles farther away than predicted by the FE "model" and becomes much, much worse when the experiment is repeated at several latitudes and compared.
Show me the data.
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
The answer is 800/(Sin(7.5))=6129 km, or 3809 miles.
This answer is already more than 800 miles farther away than predicted by the FE "model" and becomes much, much worse when the experiment is repeated at several latitudes and compared.
Where's the data?
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
The answer is 800/(Sin(7.5))=6129 km, or 3809 miles.
This answer is already more than 800 miles farther away than predicted by the FE "model" and becomes much, much worse when the experiment is repeated at several latitudes and compared.
Show me the data.
All the data is in the OP. One of the sides of the triangle is a vertical (the side from Sienne to the Sun). One of the sides is horizontal (Sienne to Alexandria). The other side is 7.5 degrees from the vertical. That is as simple as a triangle can get.
And if you mean the different latitudes, for every latitude you can move North 60 NM and the Sun will be one degree further South. That is a fact that has been fundamental to navigators since the fifteenth century, at least. There you have countless observations of triangles similar to Eratosthenes', so you cannot say Eratosthenes was in the conspiracy.
Just to do something that you would never do, lets do another example: it is well known that at noon, during the Equinox, if you are at a latitude of 20? North you will see the Sun at an altitude of 70? and if you see it from a latitude of 21? you will see it at an altitude of 69?. Then you have a triangle with all the angles known (assuming a flat Earth) and one known side. From there it is simple trigonometry to find that the height of the Sun will be:
h=sin(70)/((sin(70)/sin(69))-1) x 69.06 miles = 9912 miles high
You can get any result from tens of thousands of miles high to a few miles high, depending on the latitude you make your measurements. And all of this is produced from the simple fact that the altitude of the sun is 90 minus the latitude you are on, at noon during the Equinox and the fact that the Sun moves 1 degree South on the sky for every 60 NM you move North.
Here you have the calculations for every 5 degree latitude increment. You can see that the last column (the height of the Sun) goes essentially from infinity to zero, so saying the sun hovers at a specific height is impossible.
(http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp86/avillarrealpouw/calculations.png)
-
Eratosthenes experiment can be interpretted two ways. Draw out that triangle and solve it the other way.
The answer is 800/(Sin(7.5))=6129 km, or 3809 miles.
This answer is already more than 800 miles farther away than predicted by the FE "model" and becomes much, much worse when the experiment is repeated at several latitudes and compared.
Show me the data.
All the data is in the OP. One of the sides of the triangle is a vertical (the side from Sienne to the Sun). One of the sides is horizontal (Sienne to Alexandria). The other side is 7.5 degrees from the vertical. That is as simple as a triangle can get.
And if you mean the different latitudes, for every latitude you can move North 60 NM and the Sun will be one degree further South. That is a fact that has been fundamental to navigators since the fifteenth century, at least. There you have countless observations of triangles similar to Eratosthenes', so you cannot say Eratosthenes was in the conspiracy.
Just to do something that you would never do, lets do another example: it is well known that at noon, during the Equinox, if you are at a latitude of 20? North you will see the Sun at an altitude of 70? and if you see it from a latitude of 21? you will see it at an altitude of 69?. Then you have a triangle with all the angles known (assuming a flat Earth) and one known side. From there it is simple trigonometry to find that the height of the Sun will be:
h=sin(70)/((sin(70)/sin(69))-1) x 69.06 miles = 9912 miles high
You can get any result from tens of thousands of miles high to a few miles high, depending on the latitude you make your measurements. And all of this is produced from the simple fact that the altitude of the sun is 90 minus the latitude you are on, at noon during the Equinox and the fact that the Sun moves 1 degree South on the sky for every 60 NM you move North.
Here you have the calculations for every 5 degree latitude increment. You can see that the last column (the height of the Sun) goes essentially from infinity to zero, so saying the sun hovers at a specific height is impossible.
(http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp86/avillarrealpouw/calculations.png)
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
-
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
You had claimed that the Eratosthenes experiment could be used to calculate the distance to the sun. Where is the peer review that supports this claim?
-
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
-
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
You had claimed that the Eratosthenes experiment could be used to calculate the distance to the sun. Where is the peer review that supports this claim?
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/
Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section.
-
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/
Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section.
Sorry, but the "404 Page Not Found" does not seem to be a valid experiment. Did you even follow your own link, or is your trolling finally hitting rock bottom?
Edit: Maybe, if you did your lurking right, you would have found that the link you wanted is: http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php (http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php) and you would have read the last line on the page: "We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work."
-
Sorry, but the "404 Page Not Found" does not seem to be a valid experiment. Did you even follow your own link, or is your trolling finally hitting rock bottom?
They link has changed since the last time I used it. Please remain civil on these forums. I have reported your post to the moderators.
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/
Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section.
Sorry, but the "404 Page Not Found" does not seem to be a valid experiment. Did you even follow your own link, or is your trolling finally hitting rock bottom?
Edit: Maybe, if you did your lurking right, you would have found that the link you wanted is: http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php (http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php) and you would have read the last line on the page: "We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work."
That sentence at the end is not referring to the height of the sun. It's speaking about the diameter of the sun at its setting. Apparently the author does not own a copy of "Earth Not A Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
The face remains that Earatosthenes' experiment can be interpreted under a Flat Earth model to calculate a close sun.
-
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
Please read carefully: the data you need is the fact used by every navigator on land and sea for more than 500 years. You have to insult the entire portion of the civilization that has navigated anywhere in order to sustain your illusion that you have found something that has eluded all others. Maybe you have navigated to some destination other than the supermarket, and you have found for yourself that the navigation methods used since the invention of the sextant are dramatically wrong?
For years now I have suggested several simple and inexpensive experiments involving navigation that anyone can do for himself, away from the watching eye of the Conspiracy, and you have not even tried any of them. Maybe you have done your own, but you have not told us?
In the end, the few real FE theorists have to insult everyone who has lived in the southern hemisphere, or has navigated any kind of vehicle, or has bought a telescope and uses it, or has followed the space exploration, or ... the list goes on ... to keep alive the ideas they have not left their couches to test.
-
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
Please read carefully: the data you need is the fact used by every navigator on land and sea for more than 500 years. You have to insult the entire portion of the civilization that has navigated anywhere in order to sustain your illusion that you have found something that has eluded all others. Maybe you have navigated to some destination other than the supermarket, and you have found for yourself that the navigation methods used since the invention of the sextant are dramatically wrong?
For years now I have suggested several simple and inexpensive experiments involving navigation that anyone can do for himself, away from the watching eye of the Conspiracy, and you have not even tried any of them. Maybe you have done your own, but you have not told us?
In the end, the few real FE theorists have to insult everyone who has lived in the southern hemisphere, or has navigated any kind of vehicle, or has bought a telescope and uses it, or has followed the space exploration, or ... the list goes on ... to keep alive the ideas they have not left their couches to test.
-
Where's the data?
You already have all the data you need. Positions of the sun and distances between geographic locations are incredibly well documented.
The face remains that Earatosthenes' experiment can be interpreted under a Flat Earth model to calculate a close sun.
No it can't. If it could they would have put that clause in their conclusion. The apparent size of the sun does not change. I suggest you read your sources more closely in future.
And as has already been pointed out the flat earth distance to the sun will vary depending on the locations used.
-
I didn't ask for the formula of their model.
I asked for the data supporting it. Where are the experiments that verify all these different areas tests?
You had claimed that the Eratosthenes experiment could be used to calculate the distance to the sun. Where is the peer review that supports this claim?
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/
Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section.
I remember that experiment. Their results were different from the accepted value of 3000 miles. Thanks for proving my point, Tom.
-
That sentence at the end is not referring to the height of the sun. It's speaking about the diameter of the sun at its setting. Apparently the author does not own a copy of "Earth Not A Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
The face remains that Earatosthenes' experiment can be interpreted under a Flat Earth model to calculate a close sun.
In science you do not get to choose which part of an experiment you declare correct and which you declare wrong.
If you like you can argue that the whole experiment is faulty because the subject of the sun's apparent size was introduced in the conclusions, or you can accept the whole experiment since the subject of the sun's apparent size is so evident that only Rowbotham and you disagree.
One of the best signs of a bad scientist is that he/she tweaks the results into what is convenient for him/her. Most of those failings you find in science, like the Piltdown Man incident, come from this kind of faulty scientific reasoning (starting from the intended conclusion and tweaking the results into it).
-
You already have all the data you need. Positions of the sun and distances between geographic locations are incredibly well documented.
Where are the documents?
No it can't. If it could they would have put that clause in their conclusion. The apparent size of the sun does not change. I suggest you read your sources more closely in future.
And as has already been pointed out the flat earth distance to the sun will vary depending on the locations used.
Where's the data from these observations?
-
In science you do not get to choose which part of an experiment you declare correct and which you declare wrong.
If you like you can argue that the whole experiment is faulty because the subject of the sun's apparent size was introduced in the conclusions, or you can accept the whole experiment since the subject of the sun's apparent size is so evident that only Rowbotham and you disagree.
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong. The results of Eratosthenes' experiment can simple be interpreted in two ways: On a globe and on a plane. The shape of the earth gives different results regarding the sun's height.
If you're saying that we can perform additional experiments which can contradict the Flat Earth model, the burden is on you to prove it.
-
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong. The results of Eratosthenes' experiment can simple be interpreted in two ways: On a globe and on a plane. The shape of the earth gives different results regarding the sun's height.
If you're saying that we can perform additional experiments which can contradict the Flat Earth model, the burden is on you to prove it.
Tom, of what possible use is performing additional experiments assuming a flat earth when those predictions are not consistent?
-
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.
That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.
This is quite illustrative. The article is not declaring anything wrong, and the article is unambiguously declaring FE dead. And yet, Tom Bishop is declaring this a victory.
It is just like Napoleon, who left his entire army dying and rotting in Acre and went back to France to declare total victory, Tom Bishop is trying to do the same: repeat so many times that he won, that people might start to believe it.
-
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.
That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.
This is quite illustrative. The article is not declaring anything wrong, and the article is unambiguously declaring FE dead. And yet, Tom Bishop is declaring this a victory.
It is just like Napoleon, who left his entire army dying and rotting in Acre and went back to France to declare total victory, Tom Bishop is trying to do the same: repeat so many times that he won, that people might start to believe it.
This is about the fourth time in a month that Bishop has resorted to this kind of head in the sand denial. The funniest was his claim that nobody has seen satellites.
-
Tom, of what possible use is performing additional experiments assuming a flat earth when those predictions are not consistent?
How do we know that anything is inconsistent if no direct data or trials are conducted?
-
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.
That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.
This is quite illustrative. The article is not declaring anything wrong, and the article is unambiguously declaring FE dead. And yet, Tom Bishop is declaring this a victory.
It is just like Napoleon, who left his entire army dying and rotting in Acre and went back to France to declare total victory, Tom Bishop is trying to do the same: repeat so many times that he won, that people might start to believe it.
I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the Eratosthenes shadow experiment calculations?
-
If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.
That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.
This is quite illustrative. The article is not declaring anything wrong, and the article is unambiguously declaring FE dead. And yet, Tom Bishop is declaring this a victory.
It is just like Napoleon, who left his entire army dying and rotting in Acre and went back to France to declare total victory, Tom Bishop is trying to do the same: repeat so many times that he won, that people might start to believe it.
I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the Eratosthenes shadow experiment calculations?
Again,.and again, and again, you either take the experiment, results and conclusions as a whole and accept them or take them as a whole and argue against them. Anything else is poor science and poor judgment. The conclusions are there, in black and white, so even you can read them.
-
Again,.and again, and again, you either take the experiment, results and conclusions as a whole and accept them or take them as a whole and argue against them. Anything else is poor science and poor judgment. The conclusions are there, in black and white, so even you can read them.
The diameter of the sunset sunset is explained in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe. There are links available in my signature link.
The visible diameter of the sun has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes shadow calculations.
-
You already have all the data you need. Positions of the sun and distances between geographic locations are incredibly well documented.
Where are the documents?
These can help, but there's nothing to stop you using locally recorded data, or even producing your own data.
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html
No it can't. If it could they would have put that clause in their conclusion. The apparent size of the sun does not change. I suggest you read your sources more closely in future.
And as has already been pointed out the flat earth distance to the sun will vary depending on the locations used.
Where's the data from these observations?
Again, see above.
The diameter of the sunset sunset is explained in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe. There are links available in my signature link.
Not really. You just state that the sun must be 32 miles in diameter (using some very ropey and antiquated methods I might add). You do not explain why the sun does not appear larger or smaller as the flat earth theory would predict.
The visible diameter of the sun has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes shadow calculations.
But it has a lot to do with discounting the idea that the earth is flat.
-
Tom, of what possible use is performing additional experiments assuming a flat earth when those predictions are not consistent?
How do we know that anything is inconsistent if no direct data or trials are conducted?
Tom, all you have to do is do the math with different baselines to see that the predictions are inconsistent.
BTW Tom, you are the one claiming that the sun is about 3000 miles above the FE. Where is your direct data and when were your trials conducted to support your claim? Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
These can help, but there's nothing to stop you using locally recorded data, or even producing your own data.
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html
Those are calculations, not observations. That's a calculator.
Again, see above.
Calculations, not observations.
Not really. You just state that the sun must be 32 miles in diameter (using some very ropey and antiquated methods I might add). You do not explain why the sun does not appear larger or smaller as the flat earth theory would predict.
For the topic of the sun's diameter please see the Wiki.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
-
For the topic of the sun's diameter please see the Wiki.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
Oh, please. This is poor even for you, Tom.
Your wiki article demonstrates misunderstandings of (a)optics, (b)photography, (c)the inverse square law. (And there's even some special pleading on behalf of the tail lights which do not support your argument)
You clearly did not pay attention to my demolishment of your "Apollo mission sun is a stagelight" claim. You believe every word Rowbottom wrote, simply because he wrote it. You do not question his correctness. Which is why you remain wrong, and will remain wrong for all time until you switch your brain on.
-
For the topic of the sun's diameter please see the Wiki.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
Oh, please. This is poor even for you, Tom.
Your wiki article demonstrates misunderstandings of (a)optics, (b)photography, (c)the inverse square law. (And there's even some special pleading on behalf of the tail lights which do not support your argument)
You clearly did not pay attention to my demolishment of your "Apollo mission sun is a stagelight" claim. You believe every word Rowbottom wrote, simply because he wrote it. You do not question his correctness. Which is why you remain wrong, and will remain wrong for all time until you switch your brain on.
"You're wrong" is not an appropriate rebuttal. Please try again.
-
Again,.and again, and again, you either take the experiment, results and conclusions as a whole and accept them or take them as a whole and argue against them. Anything else is poor science and poor judgment. The conclusions are there, in black and white, so even you can read them.
The diameter of the sunset sunset is explained in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe. There are links available in my signature link.
The visible diameter of the sun has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes shadow calculations.
You continue picking and choosing the part of the experiment you like, for no other reason that you like it, and discarding the piece you do not like.
The same dishonest approach is used by charlatans that demonstrate the dangers of vaccination by choosing the exams that gave disquieting results, or the dishonest lawyers that choose the phrase in a document that sounds bad for the opponent.
In the case of this experiment, we have already seen that according to the experiment by Eratosthenes and a flat Earth hypothesis, the sun was 3809 miles high, and according to your (misquoted) source the height of the sun is about 2000 miles. Which of them is right and which is wrong? An error of almost 100% is bad enough to have to declare at least one of them totally mistaken (if they were the ones claiming a flat Earth).
-
You continue picking and choosing the part of the experiment you like, for no other reason that you like it, and discarding the piece you do not like.
The diameter of the sun at sunset is not part of Eratosthenes' shadow experiment.
-
You continue picking and choosing the part of the experiment you like, for no other reason that you like it, and discarding the piece you do not like.
The diameter of the sun at sunset is not part of Eratosthenes' shadow experiment.
Actually, it is. It helps support the assumption of a far away sun.
-
You continue picking and choosing the part of the experiment you like, for no other reason that you like it, and discarding the piece you do not like.
The diameter of the sun at sunset is not part of Eratosthenes' shadow experiment.
Actually, it is. It helps support the assumption of a far away sun.
Eratosthenes' experiment had nothing to do with the diameter of the sun at sunset.
-
You continue picking and choosing the part of the experiment you like, for no other reason that you like it, and discarding the piece you do not like.
The diameter of the sun at sunset is not part of Eratosthenes' shadow experiment.
Actually, it is. It helps support the assumption of a far away sun.
Eratosthenes' experiment had nothing to do with the diameter of the sun at sunset.
Eratosthenes was not even trying to measure the distance or height to the sun. You, Tom, are the one that is adapting an experiment for a use that is different from the intended one, which is valid, but doing a dismal or non-existent effort making the adaptation sound.
The whole adapted experiment must have its validation protocol, where the possibility of error is evaluated. In this case, repeating both experiments (what is above and what is below the "Alternate Model" title) in different circumstances is absolutely required to get significant results.
In this case, if you repeat the same experiment from different locations and get the same result you give the conclusions the degree of confidence a scientist needs. But you already saw in this thread the experiment with Eratosthenes' data and with Millersville University's data and they are different by a factor of almost 2.
-
Eratosthenes' experiment had nothing to do with the diameter of the sun at sunset.
Yes, I know that the diameter of the sun has nothing directly to do with the experiment. That doesn't mean that it isn't important to the experiment, however. As you said before, Eratosthenes assumed a round earth and a far away sun as a basis for his experiment. The sun not changing apparent size from noon to sunset helps to establish the foundation for that assumption.
-
For the topic of the sun's diameter please see the Wiki.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.
As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight.
It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."
The sun remains the same size as it recedes due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.
It stays the same size, no it gets bigger, but stays the same size all while getting bigger. Success!
We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again.
Which serves to only change the the intensity of the light on the wall. What you just explained is how the seasons work in RE, congratulations! Take the perspective of someone standing on the wall and noticing how the person holding the flashlight does not change in size in the same proportion as the circle of light did.
Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger
The red tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere and are appropriately shrinking into the distance.
A flame from a street lamp is intese enough to "catch the atmosphere" but a tail light isn't?
Perhaps you should examine the difference between a tail light and a head light as to why one would be more scattered than the other. Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
-
A flame from a street lamp is intese enough to "catch the atmosphere" but a tail light isn't?
Perhaps you should examine the difference between a tail light and a head light as to why one would be more scattered than the other. Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
Tom Bishop has written, rewritten and re-rewritten every known law of optics, in the hope that something will pass even the simplest scrutiny, without success. The most direct rule that he forgets is that any process that magnifies an image also directs the available light to a larger area, making the image dimmer. If any of his ideas had any chance of being right, the sun and all the celestial objects would be at least eight times dimmer when close to the horizon compared with when close to the zenith, just because that magnification makes the same photons cover a larger area.
Anyone who has used a telescope or a microscope is familiar with this: the larger the magnification, the dimmer the image. And it conforms to one of the most basic rules of physics: the conservation of energy. The energy (in this case a ray of light) can be directed to a small area or a large area, but the total amount of energy stays the same.
In the times of Rowbotham, when telescopes were a luxury and even proper correction glasses were not available to everyone, arguments about glare and scatter could fool more than one. But in our age you can look at the sun, moon or even galaxies with an affordable but good telescope on any part of the sky with no scatter, no glare.
-
These can help, but there's nothing to stop you using locally recorded data, or even producing your own data.
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html
Those are calculations, not observations. That's a calculator.
They are calculations based on observations, that are able to predict observations.
Or are you denying their accuracy?
Not really. You just state that the sun must be 32 miles in diameter (using some very ropey and antiquated methods I might add). You do not explain why the sun does not appear larger or smaller as the flat earth theory would predict.
For the topic of the sun's diameter please see the Wiki.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
Umm. That's what my comment was based on. If you could reply to that, I would be ever so grateful.
-
"You're wrong" is not an appropriate rebuttal. Please try again.
I don't need to. An impartial observer viewing this thread would draw the conclusion that your evidence is too feeble to convince, and that you don't know what you're talking about. Job done.
-
Yes, I know that the diameter of the sun has nothing directly to do with the experiment.
Great. So stop trying to intermingle Eratosthenes with something entirely unrelated.
As you said before, Eratosthenes assumed a round earth and a far away sun as a basis for his experiment. The sun not changing apparent size from noon to sunset helps to establish the foundation for that assumption.
See the literature or the Wiki if you are curious on these further topics.
-
Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
Because a bright white flashlight will catch onto the atmosphere and give away their position as a big bulbous target.
-
Yes, I know that the diameter of the sun has nothing directly to do with the experiment.
Great. So stop trying to intermingle Eratosthenes with something entirely unrelated.
I would hardly call one of the foundations for his assumption of a far away sun unrelated.
-
Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
Because a bright white flashlight will catch onto the atmosphere and give away their position as a big bulbous target.
I don't recall mentioning the brightness of anything. I notice you didn't care to address anything else in the post.
Bigger, smaller, no bigger while smaller. Victory for FE!
-
Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
Because a bright white flashlight will catch onto the atmosphere and give away their position as a big bulbous target.
The real reason is to protect their night vision, as red light does not trigger a bright light response in the human eye as much as other colours - rod cells are rather insensitive to red.
-
Yes, I know that the diameter of the sun has nothing directly to do with the experiment.
Great. So stop trying to intermingle Eratosthenes with something entirely unrelated.
I would hardly call one of the foundations for his assumption of a far away sun unrelated.
If you're interested in something other than the Eratosthenes experiment, you're welcome to read all about it in the literature.
-
If you're interested in something other than the Eratosthenes experiment, you're welcome to read all about it in the literature.
What if I'm interested in discussing the reasons that Eratosthenes chose to assume a round earth and a far away sun as parameters for his experiment?
-
If you're interested in something other than the Eratosthenes experiment, you're welcome to read all about it in the literature.
What if I'm interested in discussing the reasons that Eratosthenes chose to assume a round earth and a far away sun as parameters for his experiment?
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
-
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
I don't recall Eratosthenes mentioning that he had calculated the distance to the sun with his shadow experiment either.
-
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
I don't recall Eratosthenes mentioning that he had calculated the distance to the sun with his shadow experiment either.
Eratosthenes claimed that his shadow experiment could be used to calculate both the circumference of the earth and the distance to the sun.
-
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
I don't recall Eratosthenes mentioning that he had calculated the distance to the sun with his shadow experiment either.
Eratosthenes claimed that his shadow experiment could be used to calculate both the circumference of the earth and the distance to the sun.
I'm a neutral party that's just came upon this thread. You, sir, have been wrong many, many times and can't admit it. It's okay to be wrong about things, so long as you learn from it. To deny what is obviously truth...well, I just can't understand why you would want to do such a thing.
-
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
I don't recall Eratosthenes mentioning that he had calculated the distance to the sun with his shadow experiment either.
Eratosthenes claimed that his shadow experiment could be used to calculate both the circumference of the earth and the distance to the sun.
I'm a neutral party that's just came upon this thread. You, sir, have been wrong many, many times and can't admit it. It's okay to be wrong about things, so long as you learn from it. To deny what is obviously truth...well, I just can't understand why you would want to do such a thing.
I'm not wrong. Eratosthenes used his shadow experiment to describe the distance from the sun in addition to the circumference of the earth.
-
Eratosthenes didn't discuss the diameter of the sun at sunset. It's a topic separate from the shadow experiment.
But as has already been explained to you Tom, the shadow experiment in itself disproves the idea of a flat earth, since it positions the sun a variety of heights depending on where the experiment is conducted. Remember, the article (http://www.millersville.edu/physics/experiments/058/index.php) you cited positioned the sun at a different height to the one you propose.
The fact that the diameter of the sun does not vary as would be observed on a flat earth is just further evidence against it.
Kind of like a cherry on a cake.
-
Eratosthenes claimed that his shadow experiment could be used to calculate both the circumference of the earth and the distance to the sun.
You are making a very precise claim about what Eratosthenes said. Do you have the text where Eratosthenes himself described the experiment? Or are you, as usual, just trolling?
The subject is irrelevant for anything apart from evaluating your propensity to troll, since the sun is there every morning, and you can do the experiment for yourself, with little more than your Celestron telescope, a sun filter for your telescope and some gallons of gas for your car, but since you have the exact text written by Eratosthenes, I would love to expose him as a bad scientist, claiming to be able to measure the distance to the sun without a good experiment designed for it. Please, give me the text and I can become the "Basher of Greek Geniuses" in my local History Club.
-
Also, ask yourself why soldiers in the field read maps at night with red flashlights.
Because a bright white flashlight will catch onto the atmosphere and give away their position as a big bulbous target.
The real reason is to protect their night vision, as red light does not trigger a bright light response in the human eye as much as other colours - rod cells are rather insensitive to red.
Bingo
-
But as has already been explained to you Tom, the shadow experiment in itself disproves the idea of a flat earth, since it positions the sun a variety of heights depending on where the experiment is conducted.
Where's the data for that contention?
-
But as has already been explained to you Tom, the shadow experiment in itself disproves the idea of a flat earth, since it positions the sun a variety of heights depending on where the experiment is conducted.
Where's the data for that contention?
You have the data from two places: Alexandria and Sienne, as collected by Eratosthenes, and Florida and Pennsylvania, as collected by Millersville University. And the height of the sun, calculated from the data from the two experiments, does not match by a factor of 1.8!
And if you do not like your own sources, there is a third set of data, provided by you! According to you, the sun is on the zenith during the equinox on the Equator, and at an altitude of 45 degrees when you are 3000 miles North of the Equator, so you get the famous 3000 mile high Sun. And, surprise surprise, this third measurement gives a height different than any of the two other experiments!
How many more sets of data will you require? Remember, all of these come from you or a source you praise.
-
But as has already been explained to you Tom, the shadow experiment in itself disproves the idea of a flat earth, since it positions the sun a variety of heights depending on where the experiment is conducted.
Where's the data for that contention?
*sigh* Tom, the proof is in the math. In order to have a viable method to calculate the height of the sun above the FE, the process must be able to make consistent predictions from different locations. You are proposing the use of a right triangle to calculate the height of the sun above the FE. This means that the relationship between the angular elevation of the sun and the distance to the location on the FE directly below the sun must be consistent. Anyone who paid attention is trig class can tell you that it isn't.
-
But as has already been explained to you Tom, the shadow experiment in itself disproves the idea of a flat earth, since it positions the sun a variety of heights depending on where the experiment is conducted.
Where's the data for that contention?
In the article you linked.
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles.