Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference

  • 54 Replies
  • 19129 Views
*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2013, 01:13:54 AM »
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.

?

Thork

Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2013, 05:03:00 AM »
@RealScientist. If you are not enjoying a debate, leave it. Please do not flame new members off the site. Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 05:05:39 AM by Thork »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2013, 06:52:52 AM »
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.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2013, 07:48:51 AM »
@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.

?

astra

  • 14
  • bumpy Earth.
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2013, 10:55:42 AM »
in all fairness, it did begin to seem a little absurd there for a moment.
for example:

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




Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2013, 11:32:40 PM »
...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?
:)
So what? - the Ultimate Argument in any debate.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2013, 12:58:36 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.

?

astra

  • 14
  • bumpy Earth.
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2013, 05:24:50 PM »
Quote
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.

Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2013, 05:36:03 PM »
not to mention the astrolabia

true wisdom is always concise

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #39 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2013, 07:38:54 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2013, 07:59:17 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.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2013, 02:35:23 AM »
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.

Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2013, 03:24:36 AM »
...

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

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.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 03:46:26 AM by Manarq »
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 623
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #44 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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2013, 06:08:36 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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2013, 01:08:59 PM »
Eratosthenes *measured* nothing.  He simple assumed.

Much like most of the flat earthers on these boards then? :)
oooh burn! take that FErs!

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2013, 04:30:02 PM »

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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2013, 04:50:20 PM »

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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2013, 08:34:00 PM »
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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2013, 08:43:48 PM »
No.  When one assumes that the earth is flat, it becomes very apparent that the sun is much closer and much smaller.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #51 on: March 15, 2013, 08:46:08 PM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #52 on: March 15, 2013, 08:48:43 PM »
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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #53 on: March 15, 2013, 09:54:33 PM »
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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 623
Re: Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's circumference
« Reply #54 on: March 15, 2013, 09:59:43 PM »
Please refer to my study where Brother James and I talk about this very issue.