Eratosthenes

It seems to be a popular claim among flat Earth believers that when Eratosthenes carried out his shadow experiment he was actually aiming to work out the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference. However outside of FE websites all accounts of Eratosthenes talk about the circumference of the Earth rather than the diameter. Many describing in detail modern re-creations of this experiment by lots of different groups, including a worldwide network of school kids.

So where then do flat Earthers get their evidence from to support this claim of theirs that it was all about finding the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference? The implication being that it is all the other websites that have actually got it wrong about this particular experiment?

Obviously if the claim of flat Earthers that the Earth is flat really was true then that would immediately render the popular account of Eratosthenes experiment as meaningless. So presumably flat Earthers need to 're-invent' the purpose and aims of the experiment simply in order to make it 'compatible' with their beliefs.

This is the first I think I've heard this claim. Is it something you read here? Or, I guess a better question is, can you link to a source? I'm trying to think through the different models and proposals I've encountered here over the last 5 or so years and I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something.

It comes from the Wiki of another FE website which I believe several members here are also members of there. It's been mentioned before how that Wiki is apparently in need of updating to reflect changes in the attitudes of many flat Earth believers. It is though a common misconception it seems although I have never heard of such a misconception apart from this particular claim.

It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the round earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the flat earth (distance across), which is a figure identical to the circumference of the round earth (distance around).

It seems to me that whoever wrote this claim about Eratosthenes experiment is based on supporting a belief rather than having any real evidence to base it on.

I've said it before. We are treated, time  and again to arguments relating to a global Earth ranging from Eratosthenes Galileo, Foucault, Newton...etc.....etc.....etc.

When, to this very day, globalists still hark back to historical times and names to push their argument and yet they're supposedly in the age of massive technological advances from supposed satellites from the 50's and moon landings from the 60's and 70's, plus probes into deep space from the 70's that apparently still send data back of the solar system.

And yet through all this we get composite pictures of Earth looking like a circle even though it's told to be oblate.
We get treated to a few supposed shots of a real Earth from a supposed moon mission and one or two from these apparent  indestructible, all working, no stop, never give up, probes from the 70's...etc, that are apparently billion and billions of miles in space but the signals are sent back, SOMEHOW.

But here we are still debating whether Eratosthenes, the so called librarian genius managed to figure out a gobe by realising the sun didn't show a shadow  at noon where he lived and decided to go 500 miles to check if it was the same only to find it was not and it caused a shadow which he decided was a 7.2 degree angle and that told him the Earth was roughly 25,000 miles in circumference and what not.


The thing is, do we have any genuine writings from Eratosthenes or are we reliant on stories, like we are with Jesus on a cross and all the rest of the stuff that went along with it?


I mean, where does the actual proof of the writings actually start and from who?

Is it Eratosthenes or is there someone earlier who left proof.

I mean, if we wanted to play argument games on the supposed writings of a librarian in 276 BCE, it could be argued that he measured part of a circle, not a globe.

A sundial shows more of a sun movement around a circle than a supposed spinning globe.

Anyway, is there any proof of the workings of Eratosthenes or is it historical tales?

Absolutely Sceptimatic.  I couldn't agree more with you.

It all comes down to what we are willing to believe and what we are willing to accept as evidence I guess doesn't it.  How can we ultimately prove anything? 

Absolutely Sceptimatic.  I couldn't agree more with you.

It all comes down to what we are willing to believe and what we are willing to accept as evidence I guess doesn't it.  How can we ultimately prove anything?

Yep and this is where reality has to prevail in terms of whether something points to it and we be given the opportunity to see why it points to it....which.....in many cases we don't get that privilege.....which causes people like myself to massively question it........and.....if I'm not satisfied with the answers I have a massive right to reject them, just as everyone has the massive right to accept them or believe them.

As I said before. I accept a lot of stuff but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe it all.

And also.....as you know....I massively question stuff.


This is another historical figure that begs questions.
I mean, do we actually know if he existed at all?

But do you ever question yourself on whether your own obsessive questioning of 'stuff' actually brings you any happiness?  I mean I question stuff but possibly not for the same reasons that you do. 

Do we know whether Eratosthenes ever actually existed? Somehow if his intentions and experiments had provided the definitive proof that the Earth is flat I somehow don't think you would be questioning that.

I'm only asking the question because I can find literally loads of websites and other sources that describe Eratosthenes experiment and how he was aiming to measure the circumference of the Earth (and very successfully too I might add compared to modern values). All descriptions are very similar if not the same so that in itself is evidence that he did actually exist.

But that FE Wiki description is the only one I can find up to now which claims all this is some kind of misinterpretation and that he was actually measuring the diameter of the flat Earth.  So that leads me to 'question' where the real misinterpretation actually lies and why. Is it simply to try and justify a belief or is there some real evidence to support it?

Or it is the case that we simply question anything that doesn't seem to qualify or satisfy a particular belief regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it?

It seems to be a popular claim among flat Earth believers that when Eratosthenes carried out his shadow experiment he was actually aiming to work out the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference. However outside of FE websites all accounts of Eratosthenes talk about the circumference of the Earth rather than the diameter. Many describing in detail modern re-creations of this experiment by lots of different groups, including a worldwide network of school kids.

So where then do flat Earthers get their evidence from to support this claim of theirs that it was all about finding the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference? The implication being that it is all the other websites that have actually got it wrong about this particular experiment?

Obviously if the claim of flat Earthers that the Earth is flat really was true then that would immediately render the popular account of Eratosthenes experiment as meaningless. So presumably flat Earthers need to 're-invent' the purpose and aims of the experiment simply in order to make it 'compatible' with their beliefs.

That seems to be a fairly late invention. Most FEers who discuss it instead claim he was measuring the height of the sun.
It is hypothetically possible to measure the height of a sun over a hypothetical FE. But you cannot use those kind of measurements to determine the circumference or diameter of the FE.

We are treated, time  and again to arguments relating to a global Earth ranging from Eratosthenes Galileo, Foucault, Newton...etc.....etc.....etc.

Yes, to show the massive variety in evidence.
There is evidence from ancient times, which has withstood the test of time and still shows Earth is round. In addition we also have much more modern evidence, such as photos from space.

Bringing up the old evidence can be useful when crazy people decide to claim all satellite photos are fake.

And yet through all this we get composite pictures of Earth looking like a circle even though it's told to be oblate.

You also get single image photos.
As for looking like a circle, you have falsely claimed that before.
Earth is only oblate by a tiny bit.
Unless you actually measure it, or had a reference circle, you would not be able to tell if it was oblate, or a perfect sphere.

The thing is, do we have any genuine writings from Eratosthenes

You don't need them.
You can go do the experiment yourself.

A sundial shows more of a sun movement around a circle than a supposed spinning globe.

The sun circling, going above and below your location, rather than circling a flat plane.
And a great type of sundial is an equatorial mount sundial.
As the sun appears to circle Earth in a plane parallel to the equator, an equatorial sundial doesn't need to be made differently for different locations, and can have the hours separated by equal amounts along a circle.
But that relies upon Earth being a globe to work.

And these kind of visual observations cannot tell which is moving.

Sceptimatic seems to take this whole issue about 'questioning stuff' to a whole new level. In fact the only thing he doesn't seem to find reason to question is anything that he personally believes in.  Anything that science proposes that falls outside of that is dismissed as utter nonesense.

JB is right. Whether Eratosthenes physically existed is not essential to the validity of the experiment that is historically attributed to him. What is important in science is testability and repeatability.  The method of the experiment is described very clearly and so anyone can carry out the same experiment and achieve the same results. The same cannot be said of any of Sceptimatics own 'simple experiments'. The only repeating feature there is his insistence that he has described them (despite no one being able to actually find those descriptions). Consistency of results leads us to conclude the result obtained is correct.

Now you could say (as FEers would have us believe) that the figure obtained is that of the diameter of the Earth and not the circumference.  But there have been so many other ways in which the circumference has been measured, these back each other up.  There has been no further confirmation however that the Earth is actually flat.  So there is no evidence to back up the claim of FEers because the diameter of a circle cannot be the same as the circumference for obvious reasons.

Now you could say (as FEers would have us believe) that the figure obtained is that of the diameter of the Earth and not the circumference. 

You are taking something Tom Bishop wrote and asserting that it's a popular opinion among FE, and now repeating it as if it's a common thing that comes up. That is not true. Tom Bishop says lots of wrong things, all the time, and both RE and FE tell him so, all the time.

So it sounds like Tom Bishop has got a lot in common with many other flat Earth believers then.

So it sounds like Tom Bishop has got a lot in common with many other flat Earth believers then.

You keep saying that. Yet I'm not seeing them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm sure one will be along any minute now. Let's wait and see!

JB is right. Whether Eratosthenes physically existed is not essential to the validity of the experiment that is historically attributed to him.

Eratosthenes is of interest to historians, not physicists.

That is not true. Tom Bishop says lots of wrong things

That's being generous.  He just straight up lies about stuff. 

But do you ever question yourself on whether your own obsessive questioning of 'stuff' actually brings you any happiness?

Questioning stuff can be a pain in the bum n many instances and it certainly doesn't make me happy. But then again it doesn't make me sad to any point of being overwhelmed.

  I mean I question stuff but possibly not for the same reasons that you do.

If you question stuff then it is for the same reasons. You don't trust or accept the evidence provided, no matter what it is.
 

Do we know whether Eratosthenes ever actually existed? Somehow if his intentions and experiments had provided the definitive proof that the Earth is flat I somehow don't think you would be questioning that.

No, not at all.
I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

I'm only asking the question because I can find literally loads of websites and other sources that describe Eratosthenes experiment and how he was aiming to measure the circumference of the Earth (and very successfully too I might add compared to modern values). All descriptions are very similar if not the same so that in itself is evidence that he did actually exist.

Of course but then again you can find lots of websites about god or jesus or whatever and many say the same thing pertaining to that religious belief.
Did jesus exist in the past as we are told?

This is why I ask.
Do we have papers from Eratosthenes time or are we reliant on historical stories that may not hold entire truth's?

But that FE Wiki description is the only one I can find up to now which claims all this is some kind of misinterpretation and that he was actually measuring the diameter of the flat Earth.

Or was he doing anything of the sort for any of it. Was he real?

  So that leads me to 'question' where the real misinterpretation actually lies and why.

The $64,000 question.

Is it simply to try and justify a belief or is there some real evidence to support it?

Is there evidence to support it?

Or it is the case that we simply question anything that doesn't seem to qualify or satisfy a particular belief regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it?

We have 4 options.

1. We can believe it because we have proof.
2. We can believe it blindly.
3. We can accept it based on circumstantial evidence but not necessarily believe it.
4. We can question it and not believe nor accept anything until proof is provided.

Sceptimatic seems to take this whole issue about 'questioning stuff' to a whole new level. In fact the only thing he doesn't seem to find reason to question is anything that he personally believes in.

Wrong and you need to try and get that into your head, because it's been explained many many times.

I started out as the global Earth acceptor.
I had all kinds of thought processes since I joined up on this forum after reading every different take.
I changed from a spinning globe to a stationary globe.
I then started to ponder a bit more and came up with may different hypotheses.
I didn't just believe them, I merely pondered them until I got some traction.


I'm currently where I'm at now because I'm doing little experiments and such. That's for me and that's for me to argue, which  brings me back to the stage where I'm arguing against people like yourself and the nasties like JB and co, whose goal seems to be defend a globe at all costs on a flat Earth forum, which I find weird in itself.

  Anything that science proposes that falls outside of that is dismissed as utter nonesense.

No. I don't dismiss science as utter nonsense. Science is science, which is the Earth.
It's the misinformation passed off as scientific which I class as nonsense.

I didn't just believe them, I merely pondered them until I got some traction.

That's fine. There are no limits on what we can or can't believe in. Some people believe in fairies, ghosts or whatever makes them feel happy and if your belief system about what the world is like works for you then I have no issue with that. If you believe it then it makes it real to you.

That's all there is to it from my point of view.

Quote

I didn't just believe them, I merely pondered them until I got some traction.

That's fine. There are no limits on what we can or can't believe in. Some people believe in fairies, ghosts or whatever makes them feel happy and if your belief system about what the world is like works for you then I have no issue with that. If you believe it then it makes it real to you.

That's all there is to it from my point of view.

And the very same goes for you.

I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

Here's where things get weird. We all have to look at some of these things through the lens of regular humanity not through the lens of those of us who kick around in fringe alternate thinking forums.

To the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world, the story of Eratosthenes and calculating the circumference of the earth is not used as a battering ram to drill home the idea that the earth is a globe. Before the uptick of flat-earthdom, it was used simply to show how amazing it was that 2500 years ago or so a Greek guy came up with a way to measure earth's circumference for one. And for two, comes pretty close in accuracy as compared to the myriad ways we have today to achieve the same measurement. And perhaps for three, look, you can do the experiment yourself.

You see, apparently back then the scholarly notion was that the earth was a globe, settled science, as it were. That wasn't the question. The question was, how big is this thing and we really need to map it out. Much like today, outside of the minute pro/anti FE realm, you know, where people actually engage in the topic, the Eratosthenes story is just simply what I described; That's super cool that we had smart humans way back then who could figure stuff out just like we do today with modern tools...Amazing. The world outside of places like here consider a globe earth settled science - In essence, we're beyond that and on to more complex and pressing matters, discoveries, innovations.

As to whether Eratosthenes existed, you'd have to ask Cleomedes that. He seems to be the first guy documented to have written about E. Somewhere in the 1 or second century CE, I think.

The long and short, a couple of thousand+ years ago the Eratosthenes story and experiment came to light. If you assume the earth is a globe it's amazing how close to reality the measurement was.

Lastly, why the other wiki has it as measuring the diameter, haven't a clue. It's just dumb and serves no one because it doesn't even make sense for anyone's argument.

I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

It is being used to show how people already knew Earth was round so long ago.
To give credit, rather than acting like they didn't exist.
Like I said before, as far as the shape of Earth is concerned, it doesn't really matter if he existed or not. It doesn't matter if he did the things people said he did.
What matters is that the experiment can be replicated, and even improved, to get the same result (within uncertainty).
You can collect data on how the angle of elevation of the sun varies around Earth and over time, and use it to determine the size of the round Earth, and even show that Earth is round.

It is mainly historians that would care if he was real.

I started out as the global Earth acceptor.

I see no evidence of that anywhere.
I instead, the earliest posts of yours I can find are you outright rejecting science and claiming conspiracies.

You quite happily spout all sorts of nonsense, and have simple issues raised which you just continually ignore.
If you were honest and questioned your nonsense, you would reject it all.

I'm currently where I'm at now because I'm doing little experiments and such.

Experiments you refuse to explain or provide evidence from.

I'm arguing against people like yourself and the nasties like JB and co, whose goal seems to be defend a globe at all costs on a flat Earth forum, which I find weird in itself.

And there you go with the projection.
You are the nasty one here, the nasty one with an irrational hatred of the globe and science, who is out to attack science in any way at all costs.

I'm arguing against people like yourself and the nasties like JB and co, whose goal seems to be defend a globe at all costs on a flat Earth forum, which I find weird in itself.

Why is it weird that those who believe (sorry no that should be know) that the Earth is a globe would come to a flat Earth website?  Surely that is what keeps these debates alive?  It would be a bit boring trying to have debates if everyone agreed with each other.

And yet through all this we get composite pictures of Earth looking like a circle even though it's told to be oblate.

The equatorial diameter of the Earth 'we are told' is 12,756km while the polar diameter 'we are told' is 12,712km. That's a difference of 44km. I reckon you could call that pretty close to circular. What is the diameter of your Earth?  We know our diameter by things like satellite mapping among others but since you don't believe in satellites I know you will dismiss that.

If you question stuff then it is for the same reasons. You don't trust or accept the evidence provided, no matter what it is.

No it isn't for the same reasons. I don't question stuff just because I don't believe it. I question stuff when I want to find out more about it. With you, 'questioning stuff' is just another way of saying 'yeah right...'.

I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

I notice that FE seem to rely quite heavily on historical stuff as 'evidence'. Largely because there was much wider belief among certain communities that the Earth was flat. And that was because there wasn't so much evidence to show it wasn't flat.

This is another historical figure that begs questions.
I mean, do we actually know if he existed at all?

Regardless of the answer, why is that important?

Like I said a couple of posts ago. You as an individual have developed your own belief about what you think is the true reality about the Earth being this sort of 'cell'. I don't accept any of that because I have never been presented with any evidence to support it. But if you believe that then fine. There are no rules written down anywhere which define what is needed to believe in something.

You might say that by seeing the apparently level or flat surface of a large pond or lake is evidence that the Earth is flat. So that proves it for you. Others would disagree with you. You accept that because it suits your beliefs. I don't accept it because there are piles of evidence all around us (and above us) which tells us that is not the case.

What I am looking for is undisputable evidence that supports only one possibility. Evidence that can be tested and re-tested by anyone. Little experiments that have been done or claim to have been done by only one person do not prove anything.


 

To avoid starting another thread on the subject of Eratosthenes I will add a bit more on to this one.

Many people who are curious about the whole flat Earth saga will naturally want to know more about the beliefs and assertions of who are proponents of such a theory. A common cause for confusion among these people is that they soon discover that there is a lot of discrepancy between what one flat Earther believes compared to another. Some believe in a ice wall, others don't. Some maintain there is a dome over the Earth, others don't. What they seek is some sort of single, common source of information that provides them with as much information about flat Earth 'theory' as possible. And this is where the flat Earth 'wiki' seems to come in.

On the page about Eratosthenes and the distance to the Sun it is immediately apparent that there are problems though. It doesn't mention that Eratosthenes was already aware of Aristarchus' estimation that the sun was much more distant (and therefore bigger) than the Moon. Neither does it mention that Eratosthenes realised that the lack of any apparent change in the Moons visible disk on the sky must mean that the Earth is located near to the centre of the Moons orbit. Since the Moon and the Sun are visually the same size, Eratosthenes correctly concluded that the Sun is much bigger and more distant than the Moon.

Eratosthenes did assume that the Earth was a globe because he had weighed up the evidence that had been collected up to then by others before him. So why would he assume anything else? Unlike modern flat Earthers we wasn't trying to deliberately twist the evidence presented to him to suit a particular belief.  So he would naturally be looking to calculate the circumference of the Earth rather than the diameter.

Today we can a variety of other methods to verify that the Sun is distant and thereby back up the results of Eratosthenes experiment as he recorded them. So why should anyone assume the Earth is flat? That's how science works. We use different methods to test a theory and if the results are the same we can be confident that the data is correct.

However, if we use his data with the assumption that the earth is flat we can come up with a wildly different calculation for the distance of the sun, showing it to be close to the earth.

Of course you can come up with a wildly different calculation for the distance of the Sun if you make a false assumption in the first place? If you do you will also come up with a wildly different (and wildly wrong answer). As the approach to all this by flat Earthers shows only too clearly.

Talk about twisting an otherwise sound scientific experiment in such a way that you can try and make a particular belief appear to be correct!

Another example of this was provided by none other than another hero of many a flat Earther - Mr Rowbotham. He measured the angular elevation of the Sun as seen from London and Brighton on a particular day. From this he calculated (based on his false assumption that the Earth is flat) that the distance of the point south of London where the Sun would appear to be overhead would be about 400 miles away. This takes you down to a point in SW France. Nowhere in France is the Sun every directly overhead. you have to get down to 23.5N latitude to achieve that! 400 miles south of London only takes you down to 45N. So only about 22 degrees out!

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99

The RE circumference in the experiment is equivalent to the FE diameter in the FE Monopole model.

There are two North-South points separated by 500 miles. If you know the displacement of the sun in the sky from one point to the other (ie. 7°12'), and if you know that the sun sets relatively consistently as you move through whatever mechanism causes it to set as the sun or observer moves (ie. Rowbotham's Perspective Theory, Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory), then you can estimate what the distance on earth will be from 90 degrees North to 90 degrees South (where the Sun would move 180 degrees in the sky overhead between those points) by dividing 180 by 7°12' = 25 and then multiplying that value by 500. This comes out to 12,500 miles, the FE radius (N-S). Double that figure and you get 25,000 miles, which is the FE diameter (total S-N-S across) instead of the RE circumference (total S-N-S around).

The RE circumference in the experiment is equivalent to the FE diameter in the FE Monopole model.

No, it isn't.
They are in no way comparable.

There are 2 variables in this experiment, the radius of curvature of Earth, and the altitude of the sun.
In reality, the sun is so far away that unless you have very accurate measurements, all you can obtain is the radius of curvature of earth.
For the FE model, it would give the height of the sun.

If you use more than 2 points (which aren't symmetric) you can then resolve this discrepancy, and get the radius of Earth as well as the distance to the sun, noting that as the distance to the sun increases, so does the error in it, until you basically get the radius of Earth fairly accurately, but get the distance to the sun as basically "very far away".

You cannot get the diameter of the FE from this experiment.
This experiment can't even tell you if this hypothetical FE is finite or infinite.

If you instead throw in another variable of magic bendy light, you get nothing from the experiment as there are simply too many unconstrained variables.

There are two North-South points separated by 500 miles. If you know the displacement of the sun in the sky from one point to the other (ie. 7°12'), and if you know that the sun sets relatively consistently as you move through whatever mechanism causes it to set as the sun or observer moves

And there are only 2 possibilities here which come remotely close to working:
1 - Earth is round, and you determine the size of the round Earth.
2 - Pure magic with it being massively complex depending upon your location such that it makes Earth appear round and makes any attempt at trying to determine the size of the entire Earth (or even just the regions which can be illuminated) from a local measurement impossible.

In order for it to be consistent, the region of illumination would need to be a circle. But we know it isn't on a NP centred FE.
And that is also quite trivial to realise.
We observe the equator having ~12 daylight hours each day, and ~24 hour days.
That would mean the sun illuminates ~50% of the equator, and more importantly, will illuminate 2 points on the equator 180 degrees apart.
But any circle drawn through those 2 points will cover the north pole.
This means it should always be daytime at the north pole.
And there are plenty of other related problems.

Even if you didn't have that problem and it sun illuminated a circle, there is still no basis to assume it will be a simple linear relationship, or even an isotropic relationship.

So what you really have is the experiment determining the size of the RE, and then dishonestly pretending this measurement of the circumference of the real round Earth is the same as the diameter of the fake flat Earth, because you can project the surface of the RE onto a flat surface using an azimuthal equidistant projection which preserves N-S distances.

then you can estimate what the distance on earth will be from 90 degrees North to 90 degrees South

And there is no reason to think that would be the size of a FE.
Those kind of units shouldn't even be used for north-south on a NP centred monopole FE. Why use degrees at all instead of a unit of distance?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2021, 11:47:56 PM

I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

Here's where things get weird. We all have to look at some of these things through the lens of regular humanity not through the lens of those of us who kick around in fringe alternate thinking forums.

To the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world, the story of Eratosthenes and calculating the circumference of the earth is not used as a battering ram to drill home the idea that the earth is a globe. Before the uptick of flat-earthdom, it was used simply to show how amazing it was that 2500 years ago or so a Greek guy came up with a way to measure earth's circumference for one. And for two, comes pretty close in accuracy as compared to the myriad ways we have today to achieve the same measurement. And perhaps for three, look, you can do the experiment yourself.

There's no experiment that proves a globe.
This Eratosthenes nonsense is a story of old, told by whoever set it into motion to reinforce the global mindset.
The more silly it gets the more people seem to believe it.
500 stades indeed.

You see, apparently back then the scholarly notion was that the earth was a globe, settled science, as it were. That wasn't the question. The question was, how big is this thing and we really need to map it out. Much like today, outside of the minute pro/anti FE realm, you know, where people actually engage in the topic, the Eratosthenes story is just simply what I described; That's super cool that we had smart humans way back then who could figure stuff out just like we do today with modern tools...Amazing.

Smart humans, yes. I agree there's some super smart humans.
This is not a yardstick for proof of Earth measurement by a supposed librarian in 200 BC, as we're told.

The world outside of places like here consider a globe earth settled science - In essence, we're beyond that and on to more complex and pressing matters, discoveries, innovations.

Again, more complex matters on Earth in terms of what we do to technologically advance does not offer any more proof of this supposed librarian.

As to whether Eratosthenes existed, you'd have to ask Cleomedes that.
He seems to be the first guy documented to have written about E. Somewhere in the 1 or second century CE, I think.

You mean ask someone whose birth and death dates are unknown?

The long and short, a couple of thousand+ years ago the Eratosthenes story and experiment came to light. If you assume the earth is a globe it's amazing how close to reality the measurement was.

Do we actually have any proof of these people doing what we're told they did?

Lastly, why the other wiki has it as measuring the diameter, haven't a clue. It's just dumb and serves no one because it doesn't even make sense for anyone's argument.

It's not a flat Earth wiki, so why indeed?

Those kind of units shouldn't even be used for north-south on a NP centred monopole FE. Why use degrees at all instead of a unit of distance?

Latitude was made in relation to the position of celestial bodies. When the Sun is over the equator it is directly overhead for an observer at the Equator and at the North Pole it is at 90 degrees to the observer, hence why the Equator is at 0 degrees and why North Pole is at 90 degrees North.

The rest of your post, like this point, is mostly dribble. If you know that the Sun sets relatively consistently, and if you know how much distance it takes for the Sun to descend per degree of descent, then you can estimate the length of land the light of the Sun affects. This can be done to determine the properties of a RE, though which Eratosthenes got its circumference, or we it can be done to determine the properties of an FE, by which a radius and a diameter can be derived for a FE Monopole model.

The follow up question of the elements which makes the Sun descend relatively consistently is irrelevant to the basic conclusion above. The Sun doesn't exactly descend consistently, and an element of refraction is needed for a RE model, but this deviation from consistency could just be a part of EA as well. We can say that the not-quite-consistent EA is a fundamental axiom for the above FE interpretation just as we can say that a spherical earth+refraction theory is a fundamental axiom for the RE interpretation.

Quote from: sceptimatic

I'm arguing against people like yourself and the nasties like JB and co, whose goal seems to be defend a globe at all costs on a flat Earth forum, which I find weird in itself.

Why is it weird that those who believe (sorry no that should be know) that the Earth is a globe would come to a flat Earth website?  Surely that is what keeps these debates alive?  It would be a bit boring trying to have debates if everyone agreed with each other.

Quote from: sceptimatic

And yet through all this we get composite pictures of Earth looking like a circle even though it's told to be oblate.

The equatorial diameter of the Earth 'we are told' is 12,756km while the polar diameter 'we are told' is 12,712km. That's a difference of 44km. I reckon you could call that pretty close to circular. What is the diameter of your Earth?  We know our diameter by things like satellite mapping among others but since you don't believe in satellites I know you will dismiss that.

Quote from: sceptimatic

If you question stuff then it is for the same reasons. You don't trust or accept the evidence provided, no matter what it is.

No it isn't for the same reasons. I don't question stuff just because I don't believe it. I question stuff when I want to find out more about it. With you, 'questioning stuff' is just another way of saying 'yeah right...'.

We can all question stuff to gain a better understanding. This is not what I'm talking about and you know this.
I'm talking about questioning stuff that makes zero sense.

I can't use historical figures as my battering ram anymore than you can....unless you or I have proof of the actual thing.

I notice that FE seem to rely quite heavily on historical stuff as 'evidence'. Largely because there was much wider belief among certain communities that the Earth was flat. And that was because there wasn't so much evidence to show it wasn't flat.
[/quote]If historical stories are not backed up then they cannot be relied on whatever shape the Earth may be deemed to be.

This is another historical figure that begs questions.
I mean, do we actually know if he existed at all?

Regardless of the answer, why is that important?
[/quote]It's important because it's one of many things used historically as a battering ram to hammer home a supposed truth whilst being passed off as something so simple that an ancient person managed it with a stick and yet we have all this supposed space technology and cannot produce any image of Earth apart from supposed stitching together of composites. And the odd pretence of a distant probe supposedly managing it.

Like I said a couple of posts ago. You as an individual have developed your own belief about what you think is the true reality about the Earth being this sort of 'cell'. I don't accept any of that because I have never been presented with any evidence to support it.

I don't think it's the true reality. I believe it's a much closer reality to what we've been schooled into believing.
I'm not privy to the entirety of this Earth. I'm just a small speck of something trying to figure it all out by using what nature is providing.

 But if you believe that then fine. There are no rules written down anywhere which define what is needed to believe in something.

Same goes for you.

You might say that by seeing the apparently level or flat surface of a large pond or lake is evidence that the Earth is flat. So that proves it for you. Others would disagree with you. You accept that because it suits your beliefs. I don't accept it because there are piles of evidence all around us (and above us) which tells us that is not the case.

This 100% proves the Earth is not a spinning oblate spheroid for sure, to me. One thing I am rigid on.
 

What I am looking for is undisputable evidence that supports only one possibility. Evidence that can be tested and re-tested by anyone. Little experiments that have been done or claim to have been done by only one person do not prove anything.

The above can be tested and re-tested. It's observable and you absolutely know this. But you're fighting a battle to keep the narrative and are backed, en-masse, so I don't expect you to use logic to go against that.

It seems to be a popular claim among flat Earth believers that when Eratosthenes carried out his shadow experiment he was actually aiming to work out the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference. However outside of FE websites all accounts of Eratosthenes talk about the circumference of the Earth rather than the diameter. Many describing in detail modern re-creations of this experiment by lots of different groups, including a worldwide network of school kids.

So where then do flat Earthers get their evidence from to support this claim of theirs that it was all about finding the diameter of the Earth rather than the circumference? The implication being that it is all the other websites that have actually got it wrong about this particular experiment?

Obviously if the claim of flat Earthers that the Earth is flat really was true then that would immediately render the popular account of Eratosthenes experiment as meaningless. So presumably flat Earthers need to 're-invent' the purpose and aims of the experiment simply in order to make it 'compatible' with their beliefs.

Eratosthenes erroneously assumed the Earth was round to perform this experiment. There is no other way to calculate the circumference of something without first mathematically assuming it is round. The evidence is born out of the method of his calculation.

There's no experiment that proves a globe.

You not liking reality wont change it.

This Eratosthenes nonsense is a story of old

A story of old which is easy to replicate today.
Like I said before, we don't need to rely upon the stories.
We can instead go and carry out the experiments and obtain the results, to a far greater accuracy than Eratosthenes, and get more conclusive results.

Stop acting like it is just a story.

The more silly it gets the more people seem to believe it.

If that was true, people would be believing your garbage.

It's not a flat Earth wiki, so why indeed?

What makes you say that?
After all, it is the wiki from an alleged flat Earth society.

We can all question stuff to gain a better understanding. This is not what I'm talking about and you know this.

And that is basically the point he is making.
You aren't questioning to get a better understanding, instead you are just outright rejecting reality because you don't like it.

I'm talking about questioning stuff that makes zero sense.

But you don't. You happily accept your nonsense which makes no sense, without question.

It's important because it's one of many things used historically as a battering ram to hammer home a supposed truth

No, it isn't.
Again, the only one pretending it is a battering ram, is YOU!

yet we have all this supposed space technology and cannot produce any image of Earth

Apart from all the images you just ignore or dismiss as fake.

There are plenty of images of Earth from space. You not liking them doesn't mean they aren't there.

This 100% proves the Earth is not a spinning oblate spheroid for sure, to me. One thing I am rigid on.

And that is ONLY to you.
To any sane individual it in no way proves Earth is not spinning, nor that it is not a globe nor that it is not a spinning oblate spheroid.
You falsely believe it is proof because you falsely believe the surface of level water is flat.
That is effectively the same as saying you believe it is proof that Earth is flat because you believe Earth is flat.
But that is exactly why it isn't proof.
It relies upon the assumption of Earth being flat to try to prove Earth is flat.
 

The above can be tested and re-tested. It's observable and you absolutely know this. But you're fighting a battle to keep the narrative and are backed, en-masse, so I don't expect you to use logic to go against that.

And there you go projecting again.
What is observable and testable and repeatable, is that over large distances, bodies of water curve. This can be observed in many ways. But you just ignore it.

Latitude was made in relation to the position of celestial bodies.

Which in no way makes it appropriate for a unit of measurement for a flat surface.
Especially not when one wants to try to invoke magic bendy light.

The rest of your post, like this point, is mostly dribble.

No, that would be the entirety of your post.
But good job just ignoring it all as you can't actually respond to it in any rational way.
It always so much easier for people like you to just dismiss posts with insults rather than defend your false claims.

If you know that the Sun sets relatively consistently, and if you know how much distance it takes for the Sun to descend per degree of descent, then you can estimate the length of land the light of the Sun affects.

This relies upon it following a simple pattern and being consistent around the entire Earth.
My post which you dismissed as dribble shows this cannot be the case for a FE.

Your nonsense leads to a contradiction.
If it was this simple, we get that the sun sets when it is directly above a point ~10000 km away.
This works fine for N-S distances, because they don't get distorted with the projection used for the FE "map".
But it completely fails for E-W distances and other distances.
For example, on the equator, on the equinox, with the RE model, the sun is directly overhead a point ~10 000 km away, and due west.
But with the FE nonsense it is instead above a point ~ 14 000 km away, and in a direction of north west.

The simple approximation you are trying to use simply doesn't work for a FE. You need more complex magic.
And that more complex magic means you can't use your approach for a FE.

Especially as this historical measurements didn't just use a N-S distance, as the longitude was different.

The follow up question of the elements which makes the Sun descend relatively consistently is irrelevant to the basic conclusion above.

It is massively relevant, as that forms the basis of the assumptions about how you can extrapolate from a small set of data.
But again, as shown, you can't extrapolate from that data for a FE.

We can say that the not-quite-consistent EA is a fundamental axiom for the above FE interpretation just as we can say that a spherical earth+refraction theory is a fundamental axiom for the RE interpretation.

Not unless you can provide a formula for just how this EA bends light, and explain the massive problems raised against it which show it doesn't work for your FE.

Eratosthenes erroneously assumed the Earth was round to perform this experiment.

You mean correctly concluded.

There is no other way to calculate the circumference of something without first mathematically assuming it is round.

Sure there is, but it requires more observation points.

Another option is the correct conclusion that the sun is very far away.