I care less

Yes, if you actually cared you wouldn't be spouting such childish crap.

Therefore I'm not going outside in 17 degree weather to prove something I don't even care about to some fucktard that is so clueless that he don't even realize circumference is the perimeter of a circle

Going outside will prove nothing.

You need to show how this experiment proves a round Earth.

No taking extra data to make it so you don't have unconstrained variables.

Just using 2 points, you need to show how it shows Earth is round, as similar experiments easily let you find the height of a building or some other object.

For example, this one here:

(from here:

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/triangle.html )

This experiment is equivalent.

Beneath the tree, the top is straight up, just like the sun.

Some distance away, the top is now at some angle, just like the sun.

It uses a right angle triangle and determines the tree's height.

But according to your reasoning, we should be able to use this to determine the circumference of Earth.

Lets see, a distance of 71 ft, an angle of 31.8 degrees, and thus an angle from vertical of 58.2 degrees

So each degree is 1.22 ft, so Earth's circumference must be 439 ft.

That doesn't sound right does it.

But it uses equivalent observations and equivalent math.

So what went wrong?

Was it because in order for the math to hold up the sun/top of the tree would need to be very far away?

What you are doing is like having an equation:

y+x=5, and saying this means x=5 because y=0.

But that isn't the case.

x can be 0 and y can be 5, x can be 3 and y can be 2.

You don't have enough information to solve it.

Just like those 2 measurements is not enough to determine both the shape of Earth and the height of the tree/sun.

You cannot prove the experiment doesn't prove the Earth is round Captain Coriolis.

The burden is on you to prove it does as you claimed it does.

All I need to do is point out your claim is unsubstantiated.

I say it does, prove it doesn't...

If I must.

His observation was that in Syrene, the sun was directly overhead.

Some 800 km away, the sun was at an angle of elevation of roughly 83 degrees.

By assuming Earth is flat, this forms a right angle triangle.

Thus we have the base (or adjacent side) which is 800 km, with an angle of 83 degrees and want to find the height.

Simple trig (using tan) gives us:

tan(83 deg)=h/800 km

h=800*tan(83 deg) km

=6515 km.

So the sun is 6515 km above a flat Earth.

But that is just one possibility.

In general, there are (at least) these 4 possibilities:

(Yes, I know it isn't too scale and the measurements are examples, but it shows the point).

You have a round Earth with a distant sun. But that would require assuming (or having another experiment) tell you the sun is far away.

But the sun can move closer.

As you bring the sun closer, Earth would expand. This gives another option, a large round Earth with a nearish sun.

Eventually, this expansion will necessitate an infinite radius. This gives another option, a flat Earth with a near sun.

But you can bring the sun even closer. This now results in Earth being inside out, giving the 4th option of an inside out Earth with a very close sun.

Notice how there are 2 variables here, the shape of Earth and the distance to the sun. (technically three as it is also the position of the sun).

You don't have Eratosthenes experiment does not have enough data to find a unique solution.

Going to admit you were wrong now, or will you continue with your stupidity. Sure, you can pretend it is trolling to try and hide how stupid you are, but everyone knows.