Proof of a round earth?

One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.

Can FE-theory explain this please? It may already been answered, but I haven't seen it.

One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.

Can FE-theory explain this please? It may already been answered, but I haven't seen it.

Man, it's been a long time since my math degree, but we used to have other solids that projected a round shadow back then. Like a disk, a cylinder, stuff like that.

I see you threw that word "always" in there to CYA. Doesn't work however. You would have to prove that any particular configuration of the moon with respect to the earth can happen. For all we know, the same side of the moon could always face the earth, and your argument would fall flat.

It's not the earth's shadow, it's the Shadow Object's. 

This is covered in the FAQ.

It?s a common misconception that ancient people thought the Earth was flat. Not true! Eratosthenes, thousands of years ago, showed not only that the Earth was round, but also derived a diameter for the Earth that was very nearly correct! He did this by measuring the length of a stick?s shadow at two different latitudes. Because the Earth is round, the shadow lengths were different (one stick saw the Sun directly overhead, while the other saw it off to the side a bit). Since he knew the difference in the shadow lengths, and the distance between the two sticks, he was able to calculate the size of the spherical Earth.

And Eratosthenes was wrong.

And Eratosthenes was wrong.

Proof?

BURDEN OF PROOF
|
YOU

You're the one claiming he's was wrong. I'm just reading stuff from Wikipedia about Eratosthenes.
So where is your proof that he was wrong?

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

Here's your proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Or perhaps Wikipedia and the sources are lying as well.
Or maybe he was part of the conspiracy, even before there was a conspiracy?

Now tell me, if you say he's wrong. What was he wrong about?
This: http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/eratosthenes.htm ?

Well, the earth being round, for one.

Your sources are not evidence of anything but the eccentricity of the ancient Greeks.

Well, the earth being round, for one.

Your sources are not evidence of anything but the eccentricity of the ancient Greeks.

Did you visit the last link I posted here? What does it show us?

It's a common misconception around here that Eratosthenes proved the earth was round.  This is not the case.  What he in fact demonstrated was that if the earth was round it would have a circumference of just under 40,000 km.  In other words, he assumed the earth was a sphere to arrive at that conclusion.  If you read his Wikipedia page more closely you'll see that nowhere does it say he proved the earth was round.  In fact he can probably be credited with pioneering the assumption that the earth was round in the name of science, thus beginning a folly that continues to this day.

Alright! Over to the bending light issue.

The problem is with the suggestion that as we move away from the earth the "flatness" becomes round by bending light. This makes no sense what-so-ever. The light from background stars "behind" the Earth are not bending or warping around the earth. The Earth doesn't nearly have enough of a gravitational imprint to bend light in the same degree over such a short distance as required by this "flat earth seen-as-a-sphere" theory.

So, if the light from the stars isn't warping, then the light from the Earth's surface isn't warping either. In other words, if the Earth was a disk, it would STILL APPEAR AS A DISK!!!

Since the Earth appears to be a sphere, then it is, in fact, a sphere.

From a historical perspective on this subject, as stated before, the world was first proven to be round by measuring the angles of shadows that sunlight cast on a staff at different latitudes. The fact that the angles got shorter at lower latitudes indicated that the angle of the surface of the earth was changing, or curving.

Now that being said, if you subscribed to the "flat earth" theory, the way you could argue against those conclusions is by challenging the premise: that the sun is very far away. The premise states that if the sun is very far away then the rays of sunlight are parallel everywhere across earth. If they are parallel then the only explanation for different shadow lengths is curvature of the Earth's surface.

On the other hand, if you argued that the sun was very close, then you could explain the different shadow lengths by the close position of the sun. For example, if there is a light in the center of a room (on the ceiling), if a stick is in the center of the room, the shadow is short, as you move out to the edge of the room across the flat floor, the shadow lengthens. That would be your "flat earth" argument.

The problem with this is argument is that through triangulation, we can prove that the sun is actually VERY far away. It's an indisputable mathematically proven, repeatable observation. So, with even this simple and solid test, the Earth is proven to be round. 

Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Or this one: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Alright! Over to the bending light issue.

The problem is with the suggestion that as we move away from the earth the "flatness" becomes round by bending light. This makes no sense what-so-ever. The light from background stars "behind" the Earth are not bending or warping around the earth. The Earth doesn't nearly have enough of a gravitational imprint to bend light in the same degree over such a short distance as required by this "flat earth seen-as-a-sphere" theory.

So, if the light from the stars isn't warping, then the light from the Earth's surface isn't warping either. In other words, if the Earth was a disk, it would STILL APPEAR AS A DISK!!!

Since the Earth appears to be a sphere, then it is, in fact, a sphere.

Looks flat to me.

Now that being said, if you subscribed to the "flat earth" theory, the way you could argue against those conclusions is by challenging the premise: that the sun is very far away. The premise states that if the sun is very far away then the rays of sunlight are parallel everywhere across earth. If they are parallel then the only explanation for different shadow lengths is curvature of the Earth's surface.

They would be almost parallel, never parallel.

The problem with this is argument is that through triangulation, we can prove that the sun is actually VERY far away. It's an indisputable mathematically proven, repeatable observation. So, with even this simple and solid test, the Earth is proven to be round. 

So where's your proof?

Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Or this one: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

All videos supporting round earth theory are indeed fake.

So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?

So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?

Quote from: svenanders on December 22, 2008, 02:17:43 AM

So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?

A most excellent analogy.

Quote from: svenanders on December 22, 2008, 02:17:43 AM

So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?

Because Perfect Circle said that all videos showing a round earth is fake, and I assume he's reffering to those videoes I just linked to.
Well, who faked those videoes? It's clearly not NASA or the government.
And how could SpaceShipOne be part of the conspiracy?

It's clearly not NASA or the government.

How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.

Quote from: svenanders on December 22, 2008, 06:57:21 AM

It's clearly not NASA or the government.

How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.

Then where is the proof?

Quote from: svenanders on December 22, 2008, 06:57:21 AM

It's clearly not NASA or the government.

How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.

The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous.  In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.

Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.

Prepare to fail.

Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.

Prepare to fail.

Oh! The scare tactics!!!! Beware! 

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 22, 2008, 09:11:49 AM

Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.

Prepare to fail.

Oh! The scare tactics!!!! Beware! 

When you spend years opposing the Conspiracy, you learn from the best.

Then where is the proof?

You said NASA was clearly not involved. I asked how that can be known, meaning the burden of proof rests with you to prove that NASA is clean. Unless of course you change your statement to something easier to verify.

The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous.  In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.

So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.

Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.

Prepare to fail.

This is true, note his sig.

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 08:54:11 AM

The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous.  In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.

So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.

No.  I'm saying that it can be pretty tough to get some FE'ers to break character.