Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference

Quote

You should research before you blabber. Eratosthenes lived during the third century BCE. The sextant was invented around 1757 CE. That is a small error of two millenniums.

western arrogance.  you're not really buying into that story about Polynesia being settled by people traveling in canoes and following the migration of birds are you?  perhaps your'e also under the impression that Uranus wasn't discovered until 1781?  the Greeks were well aware of ancient technologies, and borrowed from previous cultures.  as did the 18th century Europeans.

There is nothing more to say here. You have already shown that you are a troll. I am not going to feed the trolls anymore.

@RealScientist. If you are not enjoying a debate, leave it. Please do not flame new members off the site. Thank you.

Invented in 1731, the sextant is to my mind is a device of deception. Its name reeks of satire and one of my associates stated that it was created as a joke by the organization. I was skeptical of this device upon hearing its vile name, in time I will show why it is a device of deception and dishonor.

@RealScientist. If you are not enjoying a debate, leave it. Please do not flame new members off the site. Thank you.

There is a difference between debate and trolling. Even you, the die hard FE'ers accepted that you were trolling when discussions became this absurd in what I have seen from 2011 or so.

in all fairness, it did begin to seem a little absurd there for a moment.
for example:

..other people have made comparable experiments and observations and have validated the result literally millions of times.

...I was skeptical of this device upon hearing its vile name, in time I will show why it is a device of deception and dishonor.

Do you have problems with the name (sextant)?!
Did you know octants (as well as quadrants etc) exist for the same observational technique?

If it's the sextant only that offends you anyhow - may be you should consult a relevant specialist?

Quote from: James on January 26, 2013, 06:52:52 AM

...I was skeptical of this device upon hearing its vile name, in time I will show why it is a device of deception and dishonor.

Do you have problems with the name (sextant)?!
Did you know octants (as well as quadrants etc) exist for the same observational technique?

If it's the sextant only that offends you anyhow - may be you should consult a relevant specialist?

The problem is not so much with the word, it is with the fact that the apparent movement of the stars, as if they were glued to a spherical dome that rotates around the North Pole and the South Pole, is totally incompatible with all models of flat Earth in this forum.

This fact destroys all hopes of having any prediction power in any flat Earth "theory" in this forum, so I can understand this attempt to call sextants "vile". If fact, the list of vile equipment should include sextants, astrolabes, octants, quadrants, telescopes with equatorial mount, cameras with normal or telephoto lenses that can be used for time lapse photography, and the list continues.

The problem is not so much with the word, it is with the fact that the apparent movement of the stars, as if they were glued to a spherical dome that rotates around the North Pole and the South Pole, is totally incompatible with all models of flat Earth in this forum.

the problem is that your sentence structure is totally incompatible with grammar, which renders your argument, if one can call it that, almost incomprehensible.

it seems that many of you have been deceived by the vile sextant, and its unchaste cousins: octant, quadrant, etc.

not to mention the astrolabia

To clarify, when I say consistently inconsistent I'm referring to it being somewhat different depending on where you are. It was a bit of word play. I wasn't expecting everyone to freak out over it. Clearly the sun is not far enough away for rays from it to be parallel to one another. Therefore, you will get different results in China than you will get in, say, Indonesia.

To clarify, when I say consistently inconsistent I'm referring to it being somewhat different depending on where you are. It was a bit of word play. I wasn't expecting everyone to freak out over it. Clearly the sun is not far enough away for rays from it to be parallel to one another. Therefore, you will get different results in China than you will get in, say, Indonesia.

And yet, in the real world, the Eratosthenes experiment does produce consistently consistent results.

Quote from: Tausami on January 27, 2013, 06:34:00 PM

To clarify, when I say consistently inconsistent I'm referring to it being somewhat different depending on where you are. It was a bit of word play. I wasn't expecting everyone to freak out over it. Clearly the sun is not far enough away for rays from it to be parallel to one another. Therefore, you will get different results in China than you will get in, say, Indonesia.

And yet, in the real world, the Eratosthenes experiment does produce consistently consistent results.

Yes, because the inconsistency in the Sun's rays is quite consistent. The shadows will be different in Indonesia than they would be in China, but that difference will stay the same.

The shadows will be different in Indonesia than they would be in China, but that difference will stay the same.

... but that difference will stay the same as expected with a round Earth and an atmosphere that pretty much does not refract light at all, except at altitudes below 15 degrees.

While you are trying to make a word game stick, science gives predictions.

Quote from: Manarq on January 25, 2013, 02:08:47 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 24, 2013, 09:16:46 PM

...

Just because you disagree with his interpretation of the results does not mean that he was drunk at the time, that it's all a fairy tale or that he was lying.

I did not infer that he was lying. I said his assumptions were wrong and led him to the wrong conclusions. Others in the thread touched on the difficulties regarding his methodology.

Hi Ski,

I notice you selectively quoted me there, here's the full quote

Quote from: Ski on January 24, 2013, 09:16:46 PM

Eratosthenes assumed the sun was incredibly far away and that the light rays arrive in parallel. One can perform the same experiment on my kitchen table, but it does not make the table's surface a sphere.

Agreed, he essentially performed the same experiment that appears somewhere in the wiki for how the height of the sun is calculated in FET. If I can find it I'll put the link in. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/3/#mmGal

1: If you perform the experiment and assume the earth is round then you get the size of the earth.

2: If you perform the experiment and assume the earth is flat then you get the height of the sun.

Just because you disagree with his interpretation of the results does not mean that he was drunk at the time, that it's all a fairy tale or that he was lying.

Where did I accuse you of inferring he was lying, if anything I agreed with the post you made and linked to a flat earth article. I was obviously referring to the 1st replies on the thread where Thork claimed it was a fairy tale and James linked to a thread where he claimed Eratosthene was lying as he would have been drunk at the time (actually I think he said dead from alcohol poisoning) if he'd performed the experiment.

History is riddled with factual inaccuracies covered up by men who sell lies bound in
academic bindings with authoritative stamps.

History is riddled with factual inaccuracies covered up by men who sell lies bound in
academic bindings with authoritative stamps.

Yes, but Erasthothenes experiment is easily duplicated.  The most difficult part is knowing the distance between the two test sites accurately.

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 07:11:20 AM

Eratosthenes *measured* nothing.  He simple assumed.

Much like most of the flat earthers on these boards then?

oooh burn! take that FErs!

Quote from: bullhorn on March 11, 2013, 12:07:28 AM

History is riddled with factual inaccuracies covered up by men who sell lies bound in
academic bindings with authoritative stamps.

Yes, but Erasthothenes experiment is easily duplicated.  The most difficult part is knowing the distance between the two test sites accurately.

Yes, but Eratosthenes's experiment relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe to calculate it's circumference. If one does not assume the earth to be a globe, it gives rather different conclusions.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 11, 2013, 06:08:36 AM

Quote from: bullhorn on March 11, 2013, 12:07:28 AM

History is riddled with factual inaccuracies covered up by men who sell lies bound in
academic bindings with authoritative stamps.

Yes, but Erasthothenes experiment is easily duplicated.  The most difficult part is knowing the distance between the two test sites accurately.

Yes, but Eratosthenes's experiment relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe to calculate it's circumference. If one does not assume the earth to be a globe, it gives rather different conclusions.

What conclusions would you get from those results assuming the earth is flat?

Yes, but Eratosthenes's experiment relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe to calculate it's circumference. If one does not assume the earth to be a globe, it gives rather different conclusions.

If one assumes that the earth is a sphere, then the Eratosthenes experiment produces consistent results when performed at different locations.  If one assumes that the earth is a plane, then the Eratosthenes experiments produces inconsistent results when performed at different locations.  Which assumption of the earth's shape do you suppose is better supported by the Eratosthenes experiment?

No.  When one assumes that the earth is flat, it becomes very apparent that the sun is much closer and much smaller.

No.  When one assumes that the earth is flat, it becomes very apparent that the sun is much closer and much smaller.

Yes, but how close and how small vary wildly depending on where you perform the observations.  Assuming a round earth gives you consistent results of the earth's diameter regardless of where the observations occurred.

Round-earthers tell me that gravity varies wildly depending on where you measure it. So I guess you don't support the round-earth definition of gravity either?

Round-earthers tell me that gravity varies wildly depending on where you measure it. So I guess you don't support the round-earth definition of gravity either?

Local values of g vary by no more than a few percent anywhere on earth.  Values for the altitude of the sun using the Eratosthenes experiment can vary anywhere from 0 to infinity, depending on where the observations occur.  What was your point again?

Please refer to my study where Brother James and I talk about this very issue.