Carl Sagan COSMOS round earth demonstration

On Cosmos  Carl Sagan described Eratosthenes experiment which demonstrated the curvature of the earth. He doesn't seem to be lying so I think he is telling the truth or at least what he believes to be true.

The experiment was putting a stick up at noon and measuring the shadow.. in one city the shadow is just a spot under the stick but in another the shadow is very long and he says the only explanation is curved earth. Do you think there are any other explanations for the difference in shadow?

On Cosmos  Carl Sagan described Eratosthenes experiment which demonstrated the curvature of the earth. He doesn't seem to be lying so I think he is telling the truth or at least what he believes to be true.

The experiment was putting a stick up at noon and measuring the shadow.. in one city the shadow is just a spot under the stick but in another the shadow is very long and he says the only explanation is curved earth. Do you think there are any other explanations for the difference in shadow?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.  With what reasoning, exactly, does he use to back it up?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.

You must figure there's an alternate explanation?


Wonder why nobody has thought of it

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on May 06, 2010, 07:47:58 PM

On Cosmos  Carl Sagan described Eratosthenes experiment which demonstrated the curvature of the earth. He doesn't seem to be lying so I think he is telling the truth or at least what he believes to be true.

The experiment was putting a stick up at noon and measuring the shadow.. in one city the shadow is just a spot under the stick but in another the shadow is very long and he says the only explanation is curved earth. Do you think there are any other explanations for the difference in shadow?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.  With what reasoning, exactly, does he use to back it up?

How about because a round earth is the only shape where the experiment works consistently when measurements are taken from different locations?  Measurements from different locations on a flat earth yield inconsistent results.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

yes, the sun is a floodlight and its intensity will be different in different parts of our disc world


the earth isnt "flat" its round, just not sphericial

yes, the sun is a floodlight and its intensity will be different in different parts of our disc world...

This isn't intensity; it's direction, which none of the flat ideas can explain.

It would be the same on a flat earth with a close sun.

Take a lamp and put it on your table. Now put a popsicle stick close to the lamp and further away from the lamp.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on May 06, 2010, 07:47:58 PM

On Cosmos  Carl Sagan described Eratosthenes experiment which demonstrated the curvature of the earth. He doesn't seem to be lying so I think he is telling the truth or at least what he believes to be true.

The experiment was putting a stick up at noon and measuring the shadow.. in one city the shadow is just a spot under the stick but in another the shadow is very long and he says the only explanation is curved earth. Do you think there are any other explanations for the difference in shadow?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.  With what reasoning, exactly, does he use to back it up?

How about because a round earth is the only shape where the experiment works consistently when measurements are taken from different locations?  Measurements from different locations on a flat earth yield inconsistent results.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

Can you provide some data backing this outlandish claim up?

It would be the same on a flat earth with a close sun.

Too bad the sun isn't close, and is many times larger than the Earth.

Quote from: SupahLovah on May 07, 2010, 11:02:45 AM

It would be the same on a flat earth with a close sun.

Too bad the sun isn't close, and is many times larger than the Earth.

So you do recognize that there are other possible explanations for Eratosthenes' experiment besides the Earth's surface being curved?  I'm glad that's cleared up.

If you define explanations as guesses and blind speculation contrary to all observed evidence, then yes, it's a fine explanation.

If you define explanations as guesses and blind speculation contrary to all observed evidence, then yes, it's a fine explanation.

The point is, if the Earth is flat, then it's possible for Eratosthenes' experiment to be explained by means other than a curved surface.  Your argument here is a lot like saying "The Earth can't be flat, because it's round!"  It's terrible logic.

His argument is a lot like denying actual fact and observed evidence.  As is yours.  There's an awful lot of "if" being thrown around here with nothing backing it up.  If I crapped gold I'd be rich.  It says nothing about physical reality.

His argument is a lot like denying actual fact and observed evidence.  As is yours.  There's an awful lot of "if" being thrown around here with nothing backing it up.  If I crapped gold I'd be rich.  It says nothing about physical reality.

There's no proof that the sun isn't actually closer to the Earth and much smaller than estimated in RE.  I've denied no proven fact or observed evidence; I only deny conjecture about the sun's distance and size, which were formulated with the preconceived notion that the Earth is round.

Besides, since the question of whether or not the Earth is flat is at the heart of this forum, and indeed this thread, it's only natural that speculation about what would be the case if the Earth is flat should pop up.  It should, in fact, be expected.  It's been a longtime FE position that a flat Earth leads to a smaller and closer sun.  So your statement demonstrates nothing but your bias concerning the shape of the Earth.  You're not even willing to consider the alternative; I suspect that if you saw with your own eyes that the Earth was flat (I mean by that standard thrown around so much by REers as the important one, with no basis in reality, that a view across a great distance throws more light on reality than one up close) you would still deny it, because you already "know" that the Earth is round, thanks to that bias.

I only deny conjecture about the sun's distance and size, which were formulated with the preconceived notion that the Earth is round.

No, we know it using basic geometry and the fact that masses sweep equal areas in equal times around the collective center of mass due to gravity.  This is indeed what we observe experimentally and allows us to make accurate and precise predictions with all necessary forces accounted for.  The FE model, however, has things moving faster than light in circles around circles across the sky for no apparent reason, spooky forces that only affect certain things at certain times, as well as a score of other problems.  FE raises more questions than it answers and makes no predictions.

Also, for that last bit, didn't you admit outright in the thread about what it would take to convince you that literally nothing could?  That you could be taken into space, view the curvature of the planet, and would still refuse to believe?  This is quite a projection you're throwing my way.

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2010, 08:37:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on May 06, 2010, 07:47:58 PM

On Cosmos  Carl Sagan described Eratosthenes experiment which demonstrated the curvature of the earth. He doesn't seem to be lying so I think he is telling the truth or at least what he believes to be true.

The experiment was putting a stick up at noon and measuring the shadow.. in one city the shadow is just a spot under the stick but in another the shadow is very long and he says the only explanation is curved earth. Do you think there are any other explanations for the difference in shadow?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.  With what reasoning, exactly, does he use to back it up?

How about because a round earth is the only shape where the experiment works consistently when measurements are taken from different locations?  Measurements from different locations on a flat earth yield inconsistent results.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

Can you provide some data backing this outlandish claim up?

Can you provide some data backing up the outlandish claim that triangulation is the correct method for determining the height of the sun above the FE?  Does this method provide consistent results from latitudes other than 45 degrees north or south?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2010, 02:52:29 PM

Can you provide some data backing this outlandish claim up?

Can you provide some data backing up the outlandish claim that triangulation is the correct method for determining the height of the sun above the FE?  Does this method provide consistent results from latitudes other than 45 degrees north or south?

When did I make that claim?  Can we please keep on topic?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2010, 03:27:53 PM

I only deny conjecture about the sun's distance and size, which were formulated with the preconceived notion that the Earth is round.

No, we know it using basic geometry and the fact that masses sweep equal areas in equal times around the collective center of mass due to gravity.  This is indeed what we observe experimentally and allows us to make accurate and precise predictions with all necessary forces accounted for.

You forgot to mention in all that that part of how you "know" it is that you "know" the Earth is round.

Also, for that last bit, didn't you admit outright in the thread about what it would take to convince you that literally nothing could?  That you could be taken into space, view the curvature of the planet, and would still refuse to believe?  This is quite a projection you're throwing my way.

Not at all.  It's actually a general observation I've made about most REers who post on this forum.  What you just stated doesn't represent my own opinion in the slightest.

Quote from: markjo on May 07, 2010, 04:24:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2010, 02:52:29 PM

Can you provide some data backing this outlandish claim up?

Can you provide some data backing up the outlandish claim that triangulation is the correct method for determining the height of the sun above the FE?  Does this method provide consistent results from latitudes other than 45 degrees north or south?

When did I make that claim?  Can we please keep on topic?

I didn't say that it was your claim.  However, it is a tenet of FET and an alternative explanation for the Eratosthenes experiment, which is the topic of this thread.

Quote

Also, for that last bit, didn't you admit outright in the thread about what it would take to convince you that literally nothing could?  That you could be taken into space, view the curvature of the planet, and would still refuse to believe?  This is quite a projection you're throwing my way.

Not at all.  It's actually a general observation I've made about most REers who post on this forum.  What you just stated doesn't represent my own opinion in the slightest.

Your own posts beg to differ.  Here are a couple.

Quote from: CIS on April 24, 2010, 09:18:22 PM

If you won the chance to go up into space and you observed a round, spherical Earth, would that convince you? If not, why?

 

Such an event would prove nothing more than that the Earth appears round from high altitudes.

 

Quote from: Sliver on April 24, 2010, 09:33:27 PM

Let's say you were able to tag along on the next NASA shuttle mission.  While you're up there, you look out the window and see the Earth in all it's spherical glory.  Would that convince you?

No, that would not convince me that a round Earth could be proven...

Hilarity ensues.

It would be the same on a flat earth with a close sun.

Take a lamp and put it on your table. Now put a popsicle stick close to the lamp and further away from the lamp.

True, but your example fails, because a close sun cannot illuminate the Earth the way we know it to be illuminated.  Simply too much surface area to light up at the same time.  Not to mention the schedule of daylight.  Longer days in June north of the equator, shorter south of it.  If you use the search function, I have posted a way for you to miniaturize the FET model and test it.

Quote from: Ellipsis

Also, for that last bit, didn't you admit outright in the thread about what it would take to convince you that literally nothing could?  That you could be taken into space, view the curvature of the planet, and would still refuse to believe?  This is quite a projection you're throwing my way.

Not at all.  It's actually a general observation I've made about most REers who post on this forum.  What you just stated doesn't represent my own opinion in the slightest.

Um....  Roundy, see the parts I put in red.

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 24, 2010, 06:08:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 24, 2010, 05:57:40 PM

That's not what I said at all.  Please don't put words in my mouth and misrepresent my position.

Then there COULD arise evidence that would make you believe in a spherical planet?  There doesn't seem to be.

I never said that either.

Quote

You've said it's impossible to prove that the Earth is spherical and that you are content with your decision, essentially: nothing the opposing side can say or do will ever change my mind.

Yes, that's true, and I stand by both statements.

No, no, you all misunderstand me.  It's rather nonsensical to suggest that I'd "refuse to believe" in a round Earth because I already do.

No, no, you all misunderstand me.  It's rather nonsensical to suggest that I'd "refuse to believe" in a round Earth because I already do.

why did you change ur views?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2010, 07:59:28 PM

No, no, you all misunderstand me.  It's rather nonsensical to suggest that I'd "refuse to believe" in a round Earth because I already do.

why did you change ur views?

I never changed my views. 

No, no, you all misunderstand me.  It's rather nonsensical to suggest that I'd "refuse to believe" in a round Earth because I already do.

OK, you were asked...
"You've said it's impossible to prove that the Earth is spherical and that you are content with your decision, essentially: nothing the opposing side can say or do will ever change my mind."
To which you replied...
"Yes, that's true, and I stand by both statements."

What did we misunderstand?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 07, 2010, 07:59:28 PM

No, no, you all misunderstand me.  It's rather nonsensical to suggest that I'd "refuse to believe" in a round Earth because I already do.

Your profile text says FE theorist.  Your posts now say RE.  If you're going to keep with this "I never changed my views" thing, I'm calling troll.

But I am a FE theorist.  And I believe in a round Earth.  And I believe the Earth can never be proven round.  Explain to me how any of these things contradict each other.

I'm offended that you would call me a troll.  I am, after all, a mod.  I kind of help define what's acceptable and normal behavior here.

The point is that your...

"Not at all...What you just stated doesn't represent my own opinion in the slightest."

...statement was shown to contradict at least the three posts we've directly cited here.  You say nothing can convince you the Earth is round, and now you're posting under the pretense that you already believe something you earlier claimed you couldn't be convinced of.

The point is that your...

"Not at all...What you just stated doesn't represent my own opinion in the slightest."

...statement was shown to contradict at least the three posts we've directly cited here.  You say nothing can convince you the Earth is round, and now you're posting under the pretense that you already believe something you earlier claimed you couldn't be convinced of.

When did I say that nothing can convince me that the Earth is round?

When did I say that nothing can convince me that the Earth is round?

"...I stand by both statements."
(1)  It is impossible to prove the Earth is spherical.
(2)  Nothing the opposing side can say or do will ever change my mind.

(In response to going into space and physically seeing a spherical Earth)
"No, that would not convince me that a round Earth could be proven..."
"Such an event would prove nothing more than that the Earth appears round from high altitudes."