Egyptians "believed" RET

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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2009, 10:30:58 AM

If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.

Quote

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?

Quote from: trig on November 09, 2009, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2009, 10:30:58 AM

If you read the article it's not declaring anything wrong.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 09, 2009, 03:27:14 AM

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

Quote

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.

Quote from: markjo on November 09, 2009, 11:39:47 AM

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2009, 04:03:32 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2009, 06:48:37 PM

Quote

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.

Quote from: markjo on November 09, 2009, 07:42:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2009, 06:48:37 PM

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 10, 2009, 06:20:59 AM

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!

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 10, 2009, 06:20:59 AM

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 01:34:42 PM

Quote

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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 06:58:02 PM

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 07:38:42 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on November 10, 2009, 09:16:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 07:38:42 PM

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.