---Hard Ancient Proof from the Greeks---

I don't need a second hand account to see that the earth is flat.

Go on then, explain to me how you can see that the Earth is flat, and that flatness is not just an optical illusion, without referencing Rowbowtham or any other FE literature.

Eratosthenes was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth in his shadow experiment, which is why he came up with the figure of 24,900 miles. That's the distance from one side of the Antarctic rim to the other. It's the area of earth the light of the sun affects.

How does the math work, based on Eratosthenes' observations, to calculate the diameter of a plane?  You could use that number to determine the circumference of the Sun's "orbit," but that would be only accurate two days a year and it would not tell you anything about the size of the Earth beneath the Sun.

There is also the fact that if that number was correct, then none of the other numbers would work out.

If the diameter was 24900 miles, then the radius of the equator would be 6225 miles.  That would make the circumference of a circle drawn at the equator 39,113 miles.  This contradicts Rowbatham who mentions a equatorial circumference of 25,000 miles when he discusses the length of a degree of longitude south of the equator.

---Hard Ancient Proof from the Greeks---The ancient Greeks proved the earth was round, and you can, too. The Greeks found that islands seem to grow from the water as a ship neared. It meant that the sea was curved, and to the ship's point of view the island slowly rose from it's curved surface until it appeared on the horizon.
You can do it yourself. Go to the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Sail towards the direction of Kauai, and keep your telescope wary. Slowly, a small island Niihau will rise up out of the water. That's HARD proof, as hard as steel, as hard as concrete, as hard as diamond.

THIS SHOULD END THE DEBATE! VIVE LA RE!
Contact "logicallyRE": [email protected]

I'm currently investigating equations that would tie this to some other phenomenon, possibly in tandem with the one that causes astronomical eddification.  Throwing away most of the complexity and bringing to understandable terms, basically light "falls" faster than we think it does, especially close to the earth.

There is also the fact that if that number was correct, then none of the other numbers would work out.

If the diameter was 24900 miles, then the radius of the equator would be 6225 miles.  That would make the circumference of a circle drawn at the equator 39,113 miles.  This contradicts Rowbatham who mentions a equatorial circumference of 25,000 miles when he discusses the length of a degree of longitude south of the equator.

It's a general ballpark figure for the earth's diameter. The shadow is telling the experimenter more or less the total area of the sun's spotlight upon the earth. On a Round Earth the experiment is measuring the circumference of the earth from one end of Antarctica to the other going the long way. On a Flat Earth it's measuring the diameter of the earth from one end of Antarctica to the other.

Go on then, explain to me how you can see that the Earth is flat, and that flatness is not just an optical illusion, without referencing Rowbowtham or any other FE literature.

Shouldn't you be the one trying to prove that it's all an illusion?

Quote

There is also the fact that if that number was correct, then none of the other numbers would work out.

If the diameter was 24900 miles, then the radius of the equator would be 6225 miles.  That would make the circumference of a circle drawn at the equator 39,113 miles.  This contradicts Rowbatham who mentions a equatorial circumference of 25,000 miles when he discusses the length of a degree of longitude south of the equator.

It's a general ballpark figure for the earth's diameter. Of course a stick and shadow aren't going to tell you the exact diameter to the nearest nautical mile.

It's no general ballpark figure for the earth's diameter. 39133/25000 = 1.56452

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 30, 2008, 09:43:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2008, 05:05:37 PM

I don't need a second hand account to see that the earth is flat.

Go on then, explain to me how you can see that the Earth is flat, and that flatness is not just an optical illusion, without referencing Rowbowtham or any other FE literature.

Shouldn't you be the one trying to prove that it's all an illusion?

Three points here:
1) You said you could prove it. I was wondering how, because in all your time on this forum you've done nothing of the sort.
2) You are trying to invoke the 'proof by lack of evidence' falacy.
3) We have proved it, time and time again. Here are just a few ways:

Space travel
Sustained space travel is possible. This is possible to verify personally by observing the ISS. This thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21674.0) explains in more detail. As we know, space travel is not possible on a FE.

Space travel has produced thousands of hours of video, millions of photographs, and many terrabytes of scientific data, all of them consistent with a RE. You reject this evidence as "conspiracy" for no obvios reason.

Celestial mechanics
The celestial sphere completes one rotation in just under 24 hours. More importantly, the period of rotation of a star does not depend on it's distance from the point of rotation, so they cannot be orbiting a common centre. Also, the "orbits" are perfectly circular. The only logical thing to conclude is that it is us turning, not them.

Also, the motion of the planets is exactly as predicted in RET, to as accurate as our telescopes can measure (which is very accurate). The fact that RET completely predicts the motion of lot's of celestial bodies with complete accuracy, all from first principles, suggests that it is pretty damn correct.

Increase in altitude reveals more
Watch this video ().
Your explanation of "pushing back perspective lines" is not properly explained. Perspective lines are an aid to drawing, not physical objects. Can you explain the fact that you can see more from a plane than on the ground, from first principles?

Coriolis effect
Exactly matches RE predictions. FET says that this is due to the "gravitional rotational pull of the stars", but a "rotational pull" has never been observed independantly, and this explanation does not make any predictions that can be used to test it.

Mapping
Mampmaking, cartography, GPS, airline travel, shipping, road and rail network planning, TV and cell coverage etc. all rely on having accurate geographical information. Clearly, if everyone thought that the Earth was round when it was actually flat, none of these things would work properly.

Space travel

No. You have never traveled into space or proven that sustained space travel is possible.

Celestial mechanics

No. You have never studied the cosmos and shown that the act in precisely the way RE Theory predicts (they don't).

Increase in altitude reveals more

No. Seeing farther when you ascend in height does not prove RET. It also happens in a 3D multiplayer game which assumes a plane.

Coriolis effect

No. You have never studied wind or water currents on a large scale to be able to tell us how they act.

Mapping

No. It is possible to navigate on a Flat Earth.

No. You have never traveled into space pr proved that sustained space travel is possible.

No. You have probably never met this guy, so how do you know?

No. You have never studied the cosmos and shown that the act in precisely the way RE Theory predicts (they don't).

No. You do not know what this guy has studied and what he has not. Fact: Carl Sagan is better than you.

No. Seeing farther when you ascend in height does not prove RET. It also happens in a 3D multiplayer game which assumes a plane.

No. RE and FE predict that you will see different distances as you get higher. Let me see your test results to prove that it is the FE theory that holds true.

No. You have never studied wind or water currents on a large scale to be able to tell us how they act.

No. Have you? Prove that this guy hasn't.

No. It's possible to navigate on a Flat Earth.

GPS uses satellites. It'll entertain me when you say this is part of the conspiracy. It's just so easy isn't it?

It's a general ballpark figure for the earth's diameter.

How does it give you this information?  You still haven't answered this question.

It isn't in the ballpark, it is off by an a large amount from the actual observed circumference of the Earth.  The observed valve of the circumference of the Earth at the equator appears to be a constant in both models (FE & RE) of the Earth.

The shadow is telling the experimenter more or less the total area of the sun's spotlight upon the earth.

The length of a shadow demonstrates the area of the lit area?  How does that work?

I would think that the characteristics of a shadow tell you more about the position of the shadow vs the light source.  Through the use of multiple shadows you can begin to build a model of the surface that the shadows are projected on.

On a Round Earth the experiment is measuring the circumference of the earth from one end of Antarctica to the other going the long way). On a Flat Earth it's measuring the diameter of the earth from one end of Antarctica to the other.

Please explain how the observed data supports this analysis for the diameter of a plane.  I am not understanding the mechanics of this.

I've told you before Tom -- the argument "you've never personally tested it" is flawed. If that was how science was conducted, we'd all still be eating off stone plates and thinking that the wind is caused by air spirits.

So, what proof have you personally collected that proves, beyond doubt, that the world is flat?

I've told you before Tom -- the argument "you've never personally tested it" is flawed. If that was how science was conducted, we'd all still be eating off stone plates and thinking that the wind is caused by air spirits.

So, what proof have you personally collected that proves, beyond doubt, that the world is flat?

Can I keep my stone cookware?  I like that stuff, it works very well.

Eratosthenes was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth in his shadow experiment, which is why he came up with the figure of 24,900 miles. That's the distance from one side of the Antarctic rim to the other. It's the area of earth the light of the sun affects.

The Flat Earth Society actively uses Eratosthenes' experiments to explain features of the FE model. Here's a link which explains the idea. The explanation is at the very bottom. Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section. You will find that we can useEratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that the sun is very near to the earth. We can calculate an exact figure for the sun's distance, showing that it is very close to the earth.

As far as Eratosthenes' measurement for the earth's circumference, he was actually measuring the circumference of the sun's orbit.

I was wondering which of these is true.  I know that you posted them a whole day apart in two separate threads, but that is no excuse for this inconsistency in your model.

By the way, did you read the text of that link before you posted it?  For some reason I think that you stopped at the section titled "Alternate Model" and didn't read the conclusion immediately following it.  Here is the section that you are referring people to...

An Alternative Model

Eratosthenes' model depends on the assumption that the sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the earth. If the sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat earth. A flat earth model is sketched at the right. The vertical stick casts shadows that grow longer as the stick moves to the left, away from the closest point to the sun. (The sun is at height h above the earth.)

A little trigonometry shows that

h(TanΘ2-TanΘ1) = B

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. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.

Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.

Unfortunately, the article then continues with the following section...

That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparant 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.

Personally, I feel that you should have stuck with your second answer because it is better to defend based on the results that were observed by Eratosthenes' experiment.  The observations don't support your Earth diameter answer.

Quote

Space travel

Quote

Mapping

No. It is possible to navigate on a Flat Earth.

Not if you are using Round Earth charts.