A clear misunderstanding of what sarcasm is. Yes, my nickname is slightly ironic, the reason of which being that it was so designed. Incoherently putting it in sentences constitutes no less but... incoherence. Do note how that != sarcasm. I suggest that you get a dictionary (exempli gratia: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sarcasm) and check what the words you use mean.
Wiki:
Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” [1] Some authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony,[2] however others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony.[3]
Rethink this through "a bitter jibe or taunt." Let me know when you can keep up Pizza. And yes, your nick is also Ironic.
No one said anything about the society. Just the Earth. That's where RET took their measurement from, or at least I hope so. In your own words:
You do realize that you tried to state that RET took their measurement from FET correct? And who do you suppose came up with the FET? It seems that you were suggesting otherwise, although be it indirectly. So you agree that RET got their measurement from Earth to which directly falsifies your entire argument! That's good to know!. And here is something interesting, who in FET measured the circumference of Earth? Ah yeah, more magical data that doesn't exist
Sorry Pizzaplanet, but the diameter of 24900.2077 was taken from RE's circumference. But I guess in your little kid world ignorance is bliss.
Additionally, I encourage you to use the search function to find out more about Eratosthenes's mistakes. It sure is good to know history, but it's also very useful to know your opponent in a debate.
His mistakes only effected the exact number of the circumference and nothing more son. We can accurately measure the circumference. And sorry his experiment doesn't show a flat earth kid lol. You do comprehend what the experiment involves correct?.. You do understand how modern science comprehends this correct? You do understand that under FE there would be no degree of arc correct? And you do comprehend how the UA theory states that your position is that of the vertex position within a parabolic bowl correct?.. Yeah well educated you are not pizzaplanet.
He assumed the light beams from the Sun were parallel at the Earth - a fair assumption. He knew of a place in Syene (Aswan), some 800 km due south of Alexandria, where the sun shone vertically down a wellshaft on only one day a year, at noon - Midsummer's day. This implied to him that on this date, at this location the sun was directly overhead at 0 deg. He thought that if the Earth were curved, then at Alexandria, on the same day, at the same time, if a shadow were cast then it would imply curvature of the Earth's surface. Also, by measuring the length of the shadow and the height of the object casting it - simple post - he could calculate the angle of the rays in degrees. By dividing the distance to Aswan by this gave the distance for 1 deg of arc across the Earth's surface, and multiplying this result by 360 degrees would give the circumference of the Earth. This he did and came up with a result that wasn't bettered until the late C18 - 38400km.
So let's Give you some homework Pizzaplanet
Experiment 1:Step 1:
Take a basketball and pin some small thumb tacks all along the lines on the ball.
Step 2: Get a lamp, or other source of light and observe the shadows being cast by the thumb tacks..
Step 3: Measure shadow distance, direction, degree of direction, and light source angles from observer, and horizon.
Step 3: Repeat using a flat surface
Conclusion:
you will find how correct Eratosthenes's was in the fact that the Earth is a sphere and not a flat disk.
Experiment 2:You also might want to learn how shadows are casting when the light source is horizontal over a flat plane pizzaplanet. Here you can feel free to shine a light source across a round flat table in a dark room to understand why the FET argument is laughable..
Step 1:
Take a round flat table and put objects tall and short, or of equal height all around the table
Step 2:
Turn off the lights
Step 3:
Shine a light source across the table Horizontally
Step 4:
Observe the shadows casting across the surface
Step 5: Measure shadow distance, direction, degree of direction, and light source angles from observer and the horizon.
Step 6:
Attempt to make the source of light at high noon at one location while setting and rising on the horizon at two other locations at all times
And can you do this without effecting shadow casting LOL..
Conclusion:
FET is laughable! and it literally takes a moron to actually believe it.
Some other resources:
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/219-7d9-5-dhttp://www.ipy.org/ipy-blogs/item/1120-studying-sun-shadows-around-the-worldhttp://passporttoknowledge.com/sun/educators/noonshadows.htmlhttp://sunship.currentsky.com/stick.htmlhttp://www.earthsciweek.org/researchproject/index.htmlhttp://www.sunposition.com/http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/Sun-position-using-GPS-1.htmhttp://solardat.uoregon.edu/SunChartProgram.htmlhttp://freegeographytools.com/2007/sun-position-during-the-day-for-any-locationOr you can revert back to these:
*Determine the Circumference of the Earth Using the Sun.. You can even translate these to longitude and latitude coordinates. Smiley
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Astro_p018.shtml*we can Watch a video on how you can determine Longitude and latitude via the Sun Smiley Oh the sailors Friends, and amazing how accurate this is to GPS, and spherical Earth.
http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-find-south-latitude-and-longitude-with-sun-267789/I will Quote Markjo:
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?
You do realize that using [sic] here makes no sense whatsoever, do you? Of course you do. In that case, why are you doing it? Moreover, what's "earths"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SicSic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". It is used when writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error (i.e. it appeared thus in the original). It is normally placed within the quoted material, in square brackets and often italicized—[sic]. Alternatively it can appear after the quote in parentheses (round brackets)—(sic).
This only states that the quoted information can have variance because the data can't be 100 percent accurate. Thought It doesn't apply to my FE numbers because I am not quoting myself. I simply failed to remove [sic] from a copy and paste in order to save time. The reason why the land / sea numbers aren't 100 percent accurate is because that changes dynamically and can not be stated and quoted with 100 percent accuracy.
Thus, "earths" vs Earth's is only error on my part by not correcting someone's incorrect usage of as a proper noun.
And if this is all you have to respond with, it clearly show's your lack of ability to do anything other than to play little childish games in attempt to plead for credibility points. This is common when someone like yourself is out of your league within a debate.
You're very hypocritical when you make remarks regarding reading comprehension. The reasons why one would believe in a flat Earth are quite separate from religion. Traditionally, I invite you to lurk more prior to posting.
Reading comprehension failure seems to be a common problem with you pizzaplanet, and yes at times I can be hypocritical at 6am in the morning. I never stated I wasn't hypocritical in my error, and I really don't care if I am being hypocritical due to the fact that it's currently irrelevant to the actual focus of the overall discussion of FE vs RE.
ITT: Blatantly confusing diameter with circumference. Congratulations.
I didn't confuse the two, but error noted in my response to the quote
However, it was 6am in the morning after being up all night working on some projects
Again error noted
However, it's fair to say that RE isn't using FET diameter as their circumference
. Granted this can be a circular argument if it weren't for how RE really got their circumference. Hence, I myself don't need FET to accurately calculate Earth circumference
This still makes your argument entirely false.
Yes
Way to contradict yourself! Oh, you're cleverly kidding by posting a link to this:
A: The airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites do not exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it.
LMAO!.. We only require a speed and distance calculator to learn why this is a laughable joke.
And what's worse, it has no "data" to support it, and it relies on a conspiracy theory to give it magical credibility.. You need to Lurk more into an education Pizzaplanet if this is your best effort in terms of an opposing argument. And again this still show's your lack of understanding the difference between 486 million sq miles and 196 million sq miles. Congrats for posting a link to nonsensical arguments!