About Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes is said to be one of the first people to calculate with a great degree of accuracy the circumference of the earth. It is said he did this using two sticks and two locations. It is admitted that his methodology will also give the height of a small close sun but he derived instead the circumference because he assumed right from the start that the earth was round.

It is said that NASA argues and fakes data on the rotundity of the earth because they either do not know the shape of the earth themselves or they are actively pushing some nefarious conspiracy. All mainstream science is a part of this conspiracy allegedly lead by NASA.

My question is this. If NASA leads the conspiracy on the shape of the earth, why did Eratosthenes assume the earth was spherical? Why did his peers at that time accept his work?

Eratosthenes is a story of old. Whether the story is a true story, nobody knows because there's no scripts from that supposed time, so it's based on nothing more than hearsay.

The actual story in itself is far fetched for starters, regardless, in my opinion.

Eratosthenes - forgot about the aberration and refraction - or rather did not know. Refraction at noon is minor, but nobody abolished aberration. 

To my knowledge, atmospheric aberration affects celestial bodies, not objects on earth.

Neverheless, good question by the OP. If NASA did actually set up this massive conspiracy, how come Erastothenes started with a globe earth premise for his experiment?

Eratosthenes is a story of old. Whether the story is a true story, nobody knows because there's no scripts from that supposed time, so it's based on nothing more than hearsay.

The actual story in itself is far fetched for starters, regardless, in my opinion.

Of course. But Strabo 63 BC – c. AD 24 wrote about Eratosthenes. Pliny the Elder AD 23–79 wrote about Eratosthenes. And we have those writings and many others. So, yeah, Eratosthenes was real and he did calculate the circumference of the earth amongst a great many other things. Enough that he is recognised as the founder of geography.  Denying that is just well, crazy talk. As crazy as denying there was an itinerant preacher in the Roman province of Judea who was crucified for his teachings. After all, He also left no writings.

The complete demolition of the Eratosthenes myth: new radical chronology comes to the rescue.

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/erdmessungen.htm

Uwe Topper, one of the best European new chronologists:

"In school we learned that Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.), director of the great library at Alexandria, was the first to determine the size of the earth. Yet his alleged method does not convince me at all.
The following procedure is described: He assumed that Alexandria and Syene (now Assuan on the Nile before the first cataract) are situated on the same meridian and are exactly 5000 stades distant from each other. The latitudinal difference is given as 7°12' which is accurate. But these towns don't lie on the same meridian - Alexandria is 30° eastern longitude and Syene is 33°. The difference of 3° amounts to more than 300 km. We don't know how Eratosthenes determined these towns are 5000 stades distant (which is close enough). From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km).

The latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene, 7°12', is exactly a 50th part of the whole circumference. If this had been applied correctly in the calculation, the circumference would have come to 250,000 stades, or 2000 stades short of what Eratosthenes assumed. This suggests he knew the outcome in advance and only looked for measures that let to the right result.

My doubts are reinforced if we consider the length of the stade: 40,000 stades make the radius of the earth, and 1° of the earth's circumference equals exactly 700 stades. Thus I conclude the stade is a measure deducted from the size of the earth. If Eratosthenes applied it to measure and calculate the earth, he used the knowledge that people had used before him. And he had to twist his mathematical elaboration a bit to arrive at the same result.


Then came Eratosthenes. His books are not preserved, only some contents of the "Book of Dimensions" are quoted in Galen, and other parts mentioned in the "Geographica" of Strabo. Although Eratosthenes divides the circumference into 60 parts, he does not use this calculation, but transforms his measures into stades (see also Harley and Woodward, vol.I, p.155). One 60th of the circumference amounts to exactly 4200 stades, 42 being the typical sacred number of the Egyptians. The tropic given by Eratosthenes is situated 16,800 stades from the equator, that is 4/60th of the circle, which we would today describe as 24° northern latitude.

In order to get more exact results, Eratosthenes applied two more manipulations.
First, a group of royal geodesists measured the distance from Syene to Meroe in the Sudan (today: Dar Shendy on the Nile), which came to 5000 stades. In this case the longitudinal difference is only 2°, but it is not negligible. And how could they really measure this great distance (about 800 km) over very rough mountainous surface? Only trigonometry would have served the job, but its use is denied by Miller (p.24). He talks about measuring by steps or with a rod or a rope, always reducing the outcome to the meridian. Let us assume that this might be probable. This suggests Syene is the center of Egyptian geodetics.

The third improvement need not be taken seriously: Sailors told him that the distance between Rhodes and Alexandria is about 4000 to 5000 stades. That was not an improvement at all. We know that it is nearly impossible to determine the distance a ship has sailed. Eratosthenes neglected the longitudinal difference of 2° and probably used measurements of latitude when he implied a distance of 3750 stades, as Miller says (p.27). Posidonius, who died about 150 years later, chose 4000 stades and arrived at a similarly exact result.

Again, this tells me the result was there first, and the way of obtaining it was a pure guess.
According to Miller (p.16) recent scholars take this view. They speak of Eratosthenes as "unconsciously" arriving at his results, or borrowing them from another learned culture.

For me the question remains: where did Eratosthenes get his knowledge? That he himself was not learned is highlighted by other data given in his texts (Miller p.5): the diameter of the sun is three times that of the earth, its distance is 51 diameters of the earth, and the moon is 19,5 earth-radii away. All figures are far wrong.

So if he could not estimate himself, not even nearly, how did he arrive at an exact result for the earth's circumference?

The problem of the incorrect data used by Eratosthenes, especially the 3° difference in longitude, is brushed aside by Miller's remarks (p.6 and p.25), that they are corrected by giving the latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene as 7° 1/7 . This is not said in the Greek text, but only surmised by Miller defending Eratosthenes. Miller says Eratosthenes was able to correct his wrong longitudes by the inexact difference of the latitudes and thus find the real circumference of the earth. Committing two mistakes and arriving at the correct result means that he knew the result in advance."

Oh god ...

It’s not only about him for crying out silently.

I know. what is aberration. But - it acts only for objects in space, and does not act on near-earth objects. For the sun - the aberration must act. Since for stars it acts. But here's an ill luck, with trigonometry of the sun there is no aberration.
Then the question becomes even more interesting. If there is no aberration for the sun. That experience of Eratosthanes is logical and correct. But then the answer is obvious - the Sun is not in space. The applause of Eratosthanes. 

If you are claiming that aberration is the final nail in Eratosthenes’ coffin, I have my own doubt.
I admit I knew little of it until it was mentioned here, but a quick glance at an astronomical reference has this as about 20 arc seconds. Which would produce an error of about a third of a mile. (Less at the latitude of Northern Egypt).
I’d take that level of accuracy.

The complete demolition of the Eratosthenes myth: new radical chronology comes to the rescue.

<link>

Uwe Topper, one of the best European new chronologists:

<Quote that, among other issues, uses an unusually short length for a stade, which gives a different value for the earth's circumference (and much closer to actual) than those generally attributed to Eratosthenes. Of course, if you're rewriting history, why not?>

Rescue? Doesn't it bother you that the quotes you trot out from "one of the best European new chronologists" are based on the earth being spherical?

Have you given up on the notion that the earth is flat?

The myth of Erathostenes was invented during the Renaissance.

You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

Here is how Ptolemy's Almagest was forged at least 1,400 years later:

When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111204106/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf

http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375


The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

pages 376 - 381


https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 382 - 389)


As for the Earth being spherical, you'd need attractive gravity to keep at least four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the curved surface; however, there is no such thing as attractive gravity, as you well know by now.

The actual story in itself is far fetched for starters, regardless, in my opinion.

Care to explain why you think it is far fetched?

Eratosthenes - forgot about the aberration and refraction - or rather did not know. Refraction at noon is minor, but nobody abolished aberration. 

Aberration should affect them both the same.

The complete demolition of the Eratosthenes myth: new radical chronology comes to the rescue.

Rejecting reality doesn't demolish anything except yourself.
Remember, if you want appeals to authority you need to accept Earth is round.
If you aren't willing to accept that, then you reject the authorities you claim to use and thus you appeals are hypocritical.

I know. what is aberration. But - it acts only for objects in space, and does not act on near-earth objects. For the sun - the aberration must act. Since for stars it acts. But here's an ill luck, with trigonometry of the sun there is no aberration.
Then the question becomes even more interesting. If there is no aberration for the sun. That experience of Eratosthanes is logical and correct. But then the answer is obvious - the Sun is not in space. The applause of Eratosthanes. 

Stellar aberration is only about 40 arc seconds so is not even noticeable in any Eratosthenes type experiments.

<irrelevant stuff>

As for the Earth being spherical, you'd need attractive gravity to keep at least four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the curved surface;

There's no problem there.

You seem to be saying that the material from Uwe Topper, "one of the best European new chronologists" that you quoted is wrong. Why do you cite it here?

however, there is no such thing as attractive gravity, as you well know by now.

I've heard you claim that a few times. That doesn't mean it's true, though.

I predict this post will cause you to post an avalanche of irrelevant material in response. If you want to spam the forums with stuff you think shows why you believe attractive gravity isn't possible, would you mind showing the OP and others interested in discussing Eratosthenes some courtesy and post it in a different and more appropriate thread? Thanks! Here's an idea... post it in Flat Earth Believers. That way you won't have to deal with pesky rebuttals, and it will save most readers from even having to scroll past it.

The myth of Erathostenes was invented during the Renaissance.

You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

Here is how Ptolemy's Almagest was forged at least 1,400 years later:

So you and only you say.  But I think I'd prefer to believe people that don't make ridiculous claims like:

• Quote from: Sandokhan

  Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM »
  EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS
  The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km.

  And then later claim that it might be only 10-12 km above the earth.
  
  
• Quote from: sandokhan

  New Radical Chronology of History
  

  • History is just some 365 years old.
  • Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and
  • The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier,
  • after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

As for the Earth being spherical, you'd need attractive gravity to keep at least four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the curved surface; however, there is no such thing as attractive gravity, as you well know by now.

Whether the earth is flat or spherical something causes 5.15 Χ 10¹⁸ kg of air and 1.35 x 10²¹ kg of water to stick to the earth and not drift away.

Then, whatever causes what we call gravity, what causes the air pressure to be near enough to zero at an altitude of 100,000 m and typically 101,325 Pa at sea-level?

And the (absolute) water pressure in the ocean 101,325 Pa at sea-level and 1.086 x 10⁸ Pa in the deepest trench?

Я любопытный пони. Я понял вас люди. Вам без разницы, где вы живете. Только одна болтовня у вас. Мир совсем другой. Он не шар и не плоский. Мне жаль вас, что вы не прислушиваетесь к тому, что я говорю. А сразу  все сводите к Википедеи. И не имеете своего мнения. Абсолютно все что я говорю вы переводится  в стандарт мышления. И даже не думаете что что-то может быть не таким как кажется на первый взгляд.  И игнорируете все мои слова об этом. А ведь это и есть смысл этих дискуссий тут. Так зачем тогда мне писать, если все равно никто и не собирается думать. Это относится к обеим сторонам.
Сердито расставив крылья - отвернулся**

Думаю что это - хороший пример того что происходит тут на этом сайте!

Я любопытный пони. Я понял вас люди. Вам без разницы, где вы живете. Только одна болтовня у вас. Мир совсем другой. Он не шар и не плоский. Мне жаль вас, что вы не прислушиваетесь к тому, что я говорю. А сразу  все сводите к Википедеи. И не имеете своего мнения. Абсолютно все что я говорю вы переводится  в стандарт мышления. И даже не думаете что что-то может быть не таким как кажется на первый взгляд.  И игнорируете все мои слова об этом. А ведь это и есть смысл этих дискуссий тут. Так зачем тогда мне писать, если все равно никто и не собирается думать. Это относится к обеим сторонам.
Сердито расставив крылья - отвернулся**

Думаю что это - хороший пример того что происходит тут на этом сайте!
(I think that this is a good example of what is happening here on this site!)

If "The world is completely different. He is not a ball and not flat" just what shape is the earth?

But just because you have an opinion does not mean that your opinion is correct.

Interestingly, except rabinoz – it still for whom is necessary?

* But just because you have an opinion does not mean that your opinion is correct.*

I am confident that when I tell – I will be read for Derpy Hooves.
You except Wikipedia don't trust anything.
There are no proofs to the fact that the earth plane, as well as to the fact that it a full-sphere.
There is space but it not such as it seems to us.
It not my personal judgement – it is based on the real facts.
Just you people act this way itself as in this video. Going on the transaction with the conscience. As you can't realize reality.

 Therefore I also read myself a pony as I see the world on another.

There are no proofs to the fact that the earth plane, as well as to the fact that it a full-sphere.

All the evidence indicates it is roughly spherical.
Sure, you can say that perhaps only the parts that I personally have seen are spherical, and that Earth is magically not a complete sphere. But that would be an insane conclusion.
I will stick with the more rational one of I haven't just happened to only visit locations where it matches a sphere.

If you have an argument as to why it isn't a sphere, feel free to present it in a new thread to discuss it.

JackBlack – a new flow … It is alas useless. I already tried to do it. The truth is necessary to nobody here. All are afraid of it, otherwise it is necessary to admit to themselves some things. Which can affect the life course. And to cross all knowledge of a pattern. Who is ready – "to go crazy" and become an exile? I know only two people. from many hundreds which could understand what I speak about.
New model of the earth – it apparently for this time – people at this level of development can't accept it when they are fixated on standard idea of a pattern from the point of view of science. There is God who created everything and it is necessary to approach from this point of view. But not to invent the fairy tale to inexplicable things trying to adjust them to scientific hypotheses.
It is impossible having seen – to say several green apples that all such.
I understand that now the most logical theory it - about the globe. I even cited a gyro-compass as an example and proved that it can work only at the rotating full-sphere. But sometimes apparent simplicity and logicality only screen. Also it is worth digging more deeply that sand castles began to fall. An example of that an aberration which can't be understood. It acts differently for objects on Earth orbit and for distant space. It from the point of view of science shan't be …
If don't listen to me further, it isn't necessary and to write me here.

I already tried to do it.

Where?

The truth is necessary to nobody here.

Stop insulting everyone. Plenty of people here care about the truth. That is why they are here.

There is God who created everything and it is necessary to approach from this point of view.

No. Until you show that that is the case it is not necessary at all to approach it from the point of view of a god.

It is impossible having seen – to say several green apples that all such.

If every apple we had ever seen is green, it would be rational to conclude that all apples are green.
Do you know why it isn't? Because we have seen plenty of apples that aren't green.

An example of that an aberration which can't be understood. It acts differently for objects on Earth orbit and for distant space. It from the point of view of science shan't be …

Do you understand how aberation works? It is based upon relative motion.
The objects on Earth have negligible relative motion.
The objects in space have very large relative motion.

**Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on September 08, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
I already tried to do it.
Where?**

AM … yes in each subject! Nobody generally pays attention, to those unusual things – that I publish. Though who asked about a gyroscope that he loses the flesh. Or about the sun - light of which has different energy? Anybody.
**Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on September 08, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
The truth is necessary to nobody here.
Stop insulting everyone. Plenty of people here care about the truth. That is why they are here.**

Hmm … I nobody I don't try to offend. Pay attention who always participates in discussions and how many people at the same time view a subject. A ratio about one to hundred. And sometimes and that it is more. Now a question - visit of this website – curiosity? I understand complexity of moderation of the website. But … very bulky also doesn't result such creation of the website in results. Subjects fall into oblivion and to find something is just horror. A question – as it is possible to consider something if it is all the same thrown. And over time nobody will recall it? How it is possible to look for the truth here?

Excuse me creators of this website and those who support it - for frankness.  We Russians don't understand such attitude towards that, what are you doing. At us it doesn't go in. If there was a website segment for other languages, would think Russians a lot of things what to you porasskazal. And so it is only a one-sided line item of English-speaking people. Russians in a different way think. Probably therefore here everything is so separate and there is no common position. But so far is, what is.
And if it is the official site of the plane earth, then I think here everything shall be in a different way organized. And that all this reminds me club of fans of the earth more – a full-sphere which are tried to be overpersuaded that it is plane. Besides ineptly.
Once again I ask from all forgiveness for frankness of my words. And if whom I offended by the own words.   But such I am a Pony …

**Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on September 08, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
An example of that an aberration which can't be understood. It acts differently for objects on Earth orbit and for distant space. It from the point of view of science shan't be …
Do you understand how aberation works? It is based upon relative motion.
The objects on Earth have negligible relative motion.
The objects in space have very large relative motion.**

I appreciate that you try to understand literally everything. And to give answers to all publications. My English - not the fountain. Can therefore in this question you didn't understand an essence. Therefore I paraphrase. Satellites the lands flying around – at them aren't present an aberration. For any body in distant space it is. Besides it isn't dependent on that with what speed that flies. Besides it different for all objects. And sometimes just contradicts the General Relativity theory.

**Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on September 08, 2018, 04:10:45 AM
It is impossible having seen – to say several green apples that all such.
If every apple we had ever seen is green, it would be rational to conclude that all apples are green.
Do you know why it isn't? Because we have seen plenty of apples that aren't green.**

I don't understand your logic. Sorry. I not spoke about that. Most likely, it because of the wrong translation.
On it I will take the leave. Once again I ask applications from all whom I could offend.
And for inquisitive and attentive people, I will tell – pay attention to my signature.
Always your Breeze.

I bowed, having raised one hoof *

The undeniable fact, and make of it what you will, is that there are documents from ancient Greece, roughly two thousand years ago, stating that the Earth is a sphere, and giving dimensions of the sphere which are almost exactly the same as round-Earthers give today.

Eratosthenes is cited in those documents as the person who made the calculations, and whether he was real or not, there is agreement, as near as makes no difference, between the Greeks of two millennia ago and the scientists of today.

This is significant because any conspiracy to hide the fact of a flat Earth cannot have begun in modern times with NASA, or even in the middle ages or the Renaissance with folks like Copernicus. Round-Earth is a VERY old story. It's not an invention of the space age. NASA is two thousand years too late to have invented it.