Eratosthenes

Is everyone here idiots? I do wonder.

No, just you.

Why did he do the experiment?

Because it was already established that Earth is round and he was trying to measure its circumference.
According to your delusional BS, he didn't know Earth was round and went out to try to prove it.

Only a bunch of idiots who were pedantic flat earth numbskulls would reject his findings.

We aren't rejecting his findings.
We are rejecting your blatant lie about his experiment.
Do you understand the difference?

We accept that he measured the circumference of Earth.
We do not accept your lie that he proved Earth was a sphere.

Case closed.

So you admit you were wrong?
If not, the case is still open for you to prove he proved Earth was a sphere, and to provide evidence that the historical record credits him with such a proof.

Instead all you can do is keep shouting the same old BS.

Just because your warped minds are caught up in flat Earth idiocy that prevents you from behaving rationally does not point to his experiment not confirming the spherical nature of our planet. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

No, only an idiot would think an unconstrained experiment based upon already knowing Earth was spherical is somehow proof that Earth is a spherical.

He never set out to prove Earth was a sphere.
He already knew Earth was a sphere.
He simply determined the size of the spherical Earth, based upon the knowledge that it was roughly a sphere.

That is not proving Earth is a sphere.
That is not confirming Earth is a sphere.

A big reason why is because (as I said before), the experiment is unconstrained.
You could obtain the same result on a flat Earth.
In fact, you could obtain a wide variety of results and still use that result to calculate the size of Earth.
Any angle from ~0 to ~90 degrees could be used and plugged into his equation to determine the size of this "spherical Earth".
Likewise, any angle from ~0 to ~90 degrees could be used and plugged into his equation to determine the height of the sun above a flat Earth.

The only angles which wouldn't agree with either a flat Earth or a spherical Earth would be ones greater than 90 degrees (or exactly 90 degrees, but you can never be exact). Such an angle would require a concave Earth.

Importantly, what this means is that the experiment cannot tell if Earth is flat or round.
Thus it cannot be proof that Earth is spherical.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 27, 2021, 12:32:32 PM

Is everyone here idiots? I do wonder.

No, just you.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 27, 2021, 12:32:32 PM

Why did he do the experiment?

Because it was already established that Earth is round and he was trying to measure its circumference.
According to your delusional BS, he didn't know Earth was round and went out to try to prove it.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 27, 2021, 12:32:32 PM

Only a bunch of idiots who were pedantic flat earth numbskulls would reject his findings.

We aren't rejecting his findings.
We are rejecting your blatant lie about his experiment.
Do you understand the difference?

We accept that he measured the circumference of Earth.
We do not accept your lie that he proved Earth was a sphere.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 27, 2021, 12:32:32 PM

Case closed.

So you admit you were wrong?
If not, the case is still open for you to prove he proved Earth was a sphere, and to provide evidence that the historical record credits him with such a proof.

Instead all you can do is keep shouting the same old BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 27, 2021, 12:32:32 PM

Just because your warped minds are caught up in flat Earth idiocy that prevents you from behaving rationally does not point to his experiment not confirming the spherical nature of our planet. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

No, only an idiot would think an unconstrained experiment based upon already knowing Earth was spherical is somehow proof that Earth is a spherical.

He never set out to prove Earth was a sphere.
He already knew Earth was a sphere.
He simply determined the size of the spherical Earth, based upon the knowledge that it was roughly a sphere.

That is not proving Earth is a sphere.
That is not confirming Earth is a sphere.

A big reason why is because (as I said before), the experiment is unconstrained.
You could obtain the same result on a flat Earth.
In fact, you could obtain a wide variety of results and still use that result to calculate the size of Earth.
Any angle from ~0 to ~90 degrees could be used and plugged into his equation to determine the size of this "spherical Earth".
Likewise, any angle from ~0 to ~90 degrees could be used and plugged into his equation to determine the height of the sun above a flat Earth.

The only angles which wouldn't agree with either a flat Earth or a spherical Earth would be ones greater than 90 degrees (or exactly 90 degrees, but you can never be exact). Such an angle would require a concave Earth.

Importantly, what this means is that the experiment cannot tell if Earth is flat or round.
Thus it cannot be proof that Earth is spherical.

It calculated and confirmed it’s circumference. What more do you want Jack?

What you fail to see with your myopic vision is reality and what proof actually amounts to.

The flat earth definition of proof  is…..well they have none as proof is a concept they don’t understand. Proof for a flat earth believer does not exist. They have a belief that requires no proof, and that no actual proof will overturn.

You don’t actually get that do you?
Proof on this forum has no meaning nor does the truth so debating either is a waste of time in the context of the flat earth.

All those years ago people with sharp minds and keen observational skills were able to ‘build’ from all the available data that the world was a sphere with no single data point being the clincher. The experiment  we are discussing was yet another confirmation of that fact. If you are unable to grasp that due to your flat earth myopic vision then that’s your problem.

The world is a sphere, the ancients proved it. If that proof is not good enough for you of your flat earth compatriots then tough….. but let’s remember no proof will ever be good enough for flat earth believers so in their world proof is a non concept.

You don’t actually get that do you?

Says the one who doesn't seem to get anything.

It calculated and confirmed it’s circumference. What more do you want Jack?

Well considering you claimed he proved Earth was spherical, how about explaining how it was proof that Earth is spherical, or admitting you were wrong?
Calculating the circumference of a spherical Earth based upon already knowing it is round, with results which would also work on a different shaped Earth, is not proof.

What you fail to see with your myopic vision is reality and what proof actually amounts to.

No, that would be you, still acting like calculating the circumference is magically proof that Earth is spherical.

The experiment  we are discussing was yet another confirmation of that fact.

No it isn't, as it doesn't actually confirm it.
He could have done the experiment and gotten those results even if Earth was flat.
The experiment did not confirm Earth was round. It merely calculated the circumference of Earth which was already known to be round.

If you are unable to grasp that due to your extreme arrogance and inability to admit you were wrong then that is your problem.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 01:28:45 AM

You don’t actually get that do you?

Says the one who doesn't seem to get anything.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 01:28:45 AM

It calculated and confirmed it’s circumference. What more do you want Jack?

Well considering you claimed he proved Earth was spherical, how about explaining how it was proof that Earth is spherical, or admitting you were wrong?
Calculating the circumference of a spherical Earth based upon already knowing it is round, with results which would also work on a different shaped Earth, is not proof.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 01:28:45 AM

What you fail to see with your myopic vision is reality and what proof actually amounts to.

No, that would be you, still acting like calculating the circumference is magically proof that Earth is spherical.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 01:28:45 AM

The experiment  we are discussing was yet another confirmation of that fact.

No it isn't, as it doesn't actually confirm it.
He could have done the experiment and gotten those results even if Earth was flat.
The experiment did not confirm Earth was round. It merely calculated the circumference of Earth which was already known to be round.

If you are unable to grasp that due to your extreme arrogance and inability to admit you were wrong then that is your problem.

You wouldn’t know proof or the truth if it smacked you in the face.

You say he would have got the same results if the earth was flat. You honestly think that! Then more fool you.

You really are a simplistic idiot if you think that.

I suppose you imagine you could swap out a globe earth and replace it with a flat earth and all would be good!

If the earth were flat it would have so many knock on effects none of which you are factoring in to your make believe  bullshit.

The problem as I stated is proof and truth in the flat earth world is non existent. Your position is ridiculous. You attempt to graft science on to a totally unscientific and make believe premise.

If the planet were flat do you imagine the laws of physics would be the same as we currently understand them?

Under what circumstances would a flat planet form? To imagine such a possibility is totally irrational yet you imagine that this experiment we are debating could yield the same results on a flat planet! Possibly in your dreams but not in any reality that enjoys our laws of physics.

The fact that Tim keeps using the word "proof" so frequently is really all anyone should need to know to understand how out of his depth he is.

The fact that Tim keeps using the word "proof" so frequently is really all anyone should need to know to understand how out of his depth he is.

Tim's "Proof" count record in one post = 7. That seems like 7 too many.

Considering how often science deals with proofs, I'd say that's a good diagnosis. I concur, doctor.

Quote from: boydster on December 28, 2021, 11:23:47 AM

The fact that Tim keeps using the word "proof" so frequently is really all anyone should need to know to understand how out of his depth he is.

Tim's "Proof" count record in one post = 7. That seems like 7 too many.

You can count to seven now. Good for you.

Considering how often science deals with proofs, I'd say that's a good diagnosis. I concur, doctor.

…. And how often does  science deal with proofs?

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics?
(Answer by Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford)

This isn’t a “result”, as it is not an output of a physical experiment, but it is a fundamental tenet of science that every student eventually has to come to terms with when they study the field.

That is: there is no such thing as proof.

You wouldn’t know proof or the truth if it smacked you in the face.

And of course, because you can't refute what I say you just insult me.

You say he would have got the same results if the earth was flat. You honestly think that! Then more fool you.

No, I said he could have gotten the same results if Earth was flat. And guess what? He could have.
It is an unconstrained problem.
You can alter the radius of Earth and the height of the sun.

You really are a simplistic idiot if you don't understand that.

I suppose you imagine you could swap out a globe earth and replace it with a flat earth and all would be good!

In general, no, but for this experiment, the one you claim proves Earth is spherical, you can.

The problem as I stated

The problem as you stated is not the problem.
The problem is that you made a false claim, which you cannot justify, and refuse to admit you are wrong. Instead running off on tangents, trying to remake your claim and insulting those who point out you are wrong.

Now, instead of trying to explain why THIS EXPERIMENT (the one you claimed proved Earth is a sphere) couldn't work on a FE, you instead talk about completely different things not working on a FE. That is an implicit admission that you know this experiment doesn't prove Earth is spherical.

If you honestly thought this experiment did prove Earth was spherical, you would explain how, rather than deflecting.

Quote from: boydster on December 28, 2021, 11:39:57 AM

Considering how often science deals with proofs, I'd say that's a good diagnosis. I concur, doctor.

…. And how often does  science deal with proofs?

Pretty much never.
That is because proof is relegated to logic.
Instead, science deals with hypotheses and evidence.
The closest you get to proofs in science is proof that a theory predicts something, which says nothing about the truth of that theory or prediction; or a disproof of a theory.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 05:23:30 AM

You wouldn’t know proof or the truth if it smacked you in the face.

And of course, because you can't refute what I say you just insult me.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 05:23:30 AM

You say he would have got the same results if the earth was flat. You honestly think that! Then more fool you.

No, I said he could have gotten the same results if Earth was flat. And guess what? He could have.
It is an unconstrained problem.
You can alter the radius of Earth and the height of the sun.

You really are a simplistic idiot if you don't understand that.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 05:23:30 AM

I suppose you imagine you could swap out a globe earth and replace it with a flat earth and all would be good!

In general, no, but for this experiment, the one you claim proves Earth is spherical, you can.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 05:23:30 AM

The problem as I stated

The problem as you stated is not the problem.
The problem is that you made a false claim, which you cannot justify, and refuse to admit you are wrong. Instead running off on tangents, trying to remake your claim and insulting those who point out you are wrong.

Now, instead of trying to explain why THIS EXPERIMENT (the one you claimed proved Earth is a sphere) couldn't work on a FE, you instead talk about completely different things not working on a FE. That is an implicit admission that you know this experiment doesn't prove Earth is spherical.

If you honestly thought this experiment did prove Earth was spherical, you would explain how, rather than deflecting.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 12:09:31 PM

Quote from: boydster on December 28, 2021, 11:39:57 AM

Considering how often science deals with proofs, I'd say that's a good diagnosis. I concur, doctor.

…. And how often does  science deal with proofs?

Pretty much never.
That is because proof is relegated to logic.
Instead, science deals with hypotheses and evidence.
The closest you get to proofs in science is proof that a theory predicts something, which says nothing about the truth of that theory or prediction; or a disproof of a theory.

Ok you want to talk science. So let’s talk science. Just remember you can’t have it both ways!

If we push all the bollocks to one side and let’s consider what you said.

“ No, I said he could have gotten the same results if Earth was flat. And guess what? He could have”

What you clearly stated is that the result would have been the same if the earth were flat.

I said that would not have been possible.

We are either having a discussion that is make believe or a scientific.

I choose scientific.

If we are going to deal with this question on a scientific basis then there are no limits. Everything has to be taken into account, no ifs buts or exceptions. It’s digital. It’s either scientific or it’s not.

That experiment in reality could never have taken place on a flat earth. In your dreams or on a Terry Pratchett fictional world yes. In the real world it would not be possible in the universe we currently live in. As that is where I live and I’m assuming you live there to….The proof is there to see. Our solar system with over 200 spherical moons and 8 spherical planets and a spherical sun. There are no flat planet sized bodies Ergo he measured a spherical earth.

The scientific fact that there is no known way a planet the size of the earth could have formed as a flat disc makes the whole venture null and void from the outset. You are of course free to disagree but you would have to supply verifiable scientific evidence to support your claims. Though I think gravity would disagree with you.

You made the mistake from the outset by entering the mythical mindset of the flat earther where reality not only takes a back seat but is left way back on the kerb.

The experiment can either be discussed from a scientific perspective or a mythical one. I chose scientific.

The experiment could never have been conducted on an earth size flat planetary body. End of discussion.

“ No, I said he could have gotten the same results if Earth was flat. And guess what? He could have”
What you clearly stated is that the result would have been the same if the earth were flat.

There you go failing basic reading comprehension again.
I said could, not would. There is a difference in meaning.
In the context of this discussion, this is referring specifically to this experiment.
This is because you have claimed Eratosthenes proved Earth is spherical, with the implication of it being this experiment.

This isn't currently a discussion of if earth is flat or round. Instead it is a discussion on if the experiment proved Earth was round as you claimed.
What that means is you focus on this experiment and the results obtained. It means you need to consider a hypothetical situation in which Earth is flat and what the results would be.

If you need to already establish Earth is round in order for the results to show Earth is round, the experiment cannot prove Earth is round.

From a scientific perspective this experiment did not prove Earth is round. In fact, as already pointed out, in science, nothing is proven. That is left to logic and pure philosophy. Science deals with evidence, theories, hypotheses, etc..
If you want to ignore that technicality, it still doesn't work in your favour.
Scientifically, Earth was already shown to be round before this experiment, and this experiment didn't change that at all. It did not strengthen the evidence for Earth being round, nor did it weaken it.

All this experiment did was determine the circumference of Earth, which was already shown to be round. As such, your claim is still wrong.

If you need to bring up other things, such as how Earth could have formed as a flat disc, that is an admission that this experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere, and thus that you were wrong to claim that it does.
Trying to use all of science to claim this experiment proves Earth is round is just as dishonest as claiming the mouse sitting on my desk proves Earth is round. It is pure nonsense.

With such dishonest BS, you can falsely claim anything as proof that Earth is a sphere.

Ergo he measured a spherical earth.

And that is the point you keep on missing.
He measured Earth which already known to be spherical. He didn't prove Earth was a sphere.
Understand the difference yet?

You made the mistake from the outset

No, you made the mistake by falsely claiming Eratosthenes proved Earth was a sphere.
You have continued with this mistake and refused to back down and admit you were wrong.

The experiment could never have been conducted on an earth size flat planetary body. End of discussion.

Again, that isn't the topic of this discussion.
The topic is if the experiment proved Earth is a sphere, as you falsely claimed.
If you want it to go back to being if Earth is a sphere, all it takes is an admission that you were wrong to falsely claim he proved Earth was spherical.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

“ No, I said he could have gotten the same results if Earth was flat. And guess what? He could have”
What you clearly stated is that the result would have been the same if the earth were flat.

There you go failing basic reading comprehension again.
I said could, not would. There is a difference in meaning.
In the context of this discussion, this is referring specifically to this experiment.
This is because you have claimed Eratosthenes proved Earth is spherical, with the implication of it being this experiment.

This isn't currently a discussion of if earth is flat or round. Instead it is a discussion on if the experiment proved Earth was round as you claimed.
What that means is you focus on this experiment and the results obtained. It means you need to consider a hypothetical situation in which Earth is flat and what the results would be.

If you need to already establish Earth is round in order for the results to show Earth is round, the experiment cannot prove Earth is round.

From a scientific perspective this experiment did not prove Earth is round. In fact, as already pointed out, in science, nothing is proven. That is left to logic and pure philosophy. Science deals with evidence, theories, hypotheses, etc..
If you want to ignore that technicality, it still doesn't work in your favour.
Scientifically, Earth was already shown to be round before this experiment, and this experiment didn't change that at all. It did not strengthen the evidence for Earth being round, nor did it weaken it.

All this experiment did was determine the circumference of Earth, which was already shown to be round. As such, your claim is still wrong.

If you need to bring up other things, such as how Earth could have formed as a flat disc, that is an admission that this experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere, and thus that you were wrong to claim that it does.
Trying to use all of science to claim this experiment proves Earth is round is just as dishonest as claiming the mouse sitting on my desk proves Earth is round. It is pure nonsense.

With such dishonest BS, you can falsely claim anything as proof that Earth is a sphere.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

Ergo he measured a spherical earth.

And that is the point you keep on missing.
He measured Earth which already known to be spherical. He didn't prove Earth was a sphere.
Understand the difference yet?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

You made the mistake from the outset

No, you made the mistake by falsely claiming Eratosthenes proved Earth was a sphere.
You have continued with this mistake and refused to back down and admit you were wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

The experiment could never have been conducted on an earth size flat planetary body. End of discussion.

Again, that isn't the topic of this discussion.
The topic is if the experiment proved Earth is a sphere, as you falsely claimed.
If you want it to go back to being if Earth is a sphere, all it takes is an admission that you were wrong to falsely claim he proved Earth was spherical.

You want to backtrack and not stand by what you said…ok.

Is this a discussion grounded in science or not? Strikes me you want to have it both ways. You said his calculations could have applied to a flat earth. I said that’s false as a flat earth is an impossibility under our current laws of physics. It was never and could never, in reality, be an option.

In reality he measured the circumference of a spherical world and confirmed it.

What more proof do you need?

Are you saying there is an option under our current laws of physics for the planet to be a shape other than a sphere?

If that’s what you are saying then please explain and prove by what mechanism the earth could be flat?

As a flat earth is a physical  impossibility it was never an option…. In the real world. A flat earth is only possible in a mythical or fictional world.

The topic for discussion is, did the experiment prove the earth was a sphere. The fact that all observations led to that conclusion and his calculations gave the actual physical dimensions should be proof enough for anyone.

In reality it was always spherical as there was no other optional shape possible.

You constantly in vain try and graft science onto a fictional concept. It does not work. Reminds me of the time you argued that FE could have scientific theories and scientific models. Just not possible.

You are on a looser trying to use science to prove an unscientific point that could only exist in a mythical world.

You want to backtrack and not stand by what you said…ok.

No, that would still be you.
You falsely claimed that Eratosthenes proved Earth was round, yet can provide nothing to justify that false claim of yours.
Instead all you can do is deflect.

Showing Earth can't be flat doesn't mean he proved Earth was round. Any moron can figure that out, so why can't you?

If you had bothered paying attention to what I had said you would have noticed that I said that Earth was already known to be round before he carried out his experiment.
So all you are doing now is further showing that you were wrong to falsely claim he proved Earth was round.

You said his calculations could have applied to a flat earth. I said that’s false

And you are wrong.
His calculations can apply to a hypothetical flat Earth.

If you want to claim his experiment proved Earth is round you can't start with Earth being round.
If you need to show Earth is round before you discuss the experiment then the experiment cannot prove Earth is round.

This dishonest BS of yours is nothing more than circular reasoning.

In reality he measured the circumference of a spherical world and confirmed it.

He determined the circumference. He didn't confirm anything.

What more proof do you need?

Like I have already said, an explanation of how THIS EXPERIMENT proves Earth is round.
That means you cannot run off to something else to prove Earth is round.

Are you saying there is an option under our current laws of physics for the planet to be a shape other than a sphere?

No. I am saying his experiment is unable to determine if Earth is flat or round, and thus does not prove Earth is round.

Reminds me of the time you argued that FE could have scientific theories and scientific models. Just not possible.

Yes, that time where you spouted more ignorant garbage and were repeatedly refuted and then fled.

You are on a looser trying to use science to prove an unscientific point that could only exist in a mythical world.

And there you go with more pathetic projection.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

You want to backtrack and not stand by what you said…ok.

No, that would still be you.
You falsely claimed that Eratosthenes proved Earth was round, yet can provide nothing to justify that false claim of yours.
Instead all you can do is deflect.

Showing Earth can't be flat doesn't mean he proved Earth was round. Any moron can figure that out, so why can't you?

If you had bothered paying attention to what I had said you would have noticed that I said that Earth was already known to be round before he carried out his experiment.
So all you are doing now is further showing that you were wrong to falsely claim he proved Earth was round.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

You said his calculations could have applied to a flat earth. I said that’s false

And you are wrong.
His calculations can apply to a hypothetical flat Earth.

If you want to claim his experiment proved Earth is round you can't start with Earth being round.
If you need to show Earth is round before you discuss the experiment then the experiment cannot prove Earth is round.

This dishonest BS of yours is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

In reality he measured the circumference of a spherical world and confirmed it.

He determined the circumference. He didn't confirm anything.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

What more proof do you need?

Like I have already said, an explanation of how THIS EXPERIMENT proves Earth is round.
That means you cannot run off to something else to prove Earth is round.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

Are you saying there is an option under our current laws of physics for the planet to be a shape other than a sphere?

No. I am saying his experiment is unable to determine if Earth is flat or round, and thus does not prove Earth is round.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

Reminds me of the time you argued that FE could have scientific theories and scientific models. Just not possible.

Yes, that time where you spouted more ignorant garbage and were repeatedly refuted and then fled.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 01:23:53 AM

You are on a looser trying to use science to prove an unscientific point that could only exist in a mythical world.

And there you go with more pathetic projection.

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.


Oh so you’ve gone all hypothetical now? I though we were being scientific?

While a broken cup may suddenly spring together! Highly improbable though possible so I’m advised given our current understanding of entropy and the laws of physics.

As far as I have been able to ascertain there are no circumstances under which a flat earth size planet  could ever form. Just not possible. A total affront to gravity.  Not even improbable.

In that light there is no way in which the experiment could have in those circumstances could ever have applied to a flat earth or any other shape that was not a sphere.

You are correct in saying that observations and other work had led people 2000 plus year ago to accept the planet was a sphere. Our Greek/Egyptian friend conducted an experiment that confirmed its spherical nature by revealing its circumference.

How you or anyone could Imagine that it could be applied to a physically impossible flat earth is beyond ludicrous.

You can’t have it both ways if you want to use science in your arguments that’s fine. While remembering all the science you know was provided by other people and is therefore expert knowledge.
What you can’t do is then hijack the discussion  by moving into the realms of fantasy.

The experiment was conducted in the real world therefore real world rules are applicable not fantasy ones nor hypothetical ones, just real ones.

The experiment confirmed the spherical nature of the planet by revealing its circumference.

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.

How so, explain.

As far as I have been able to ascertain there are no circumstances under which a flat earth size planet  could ever form. Just not possible. A total affront to gravity.  Not even improbable.

What does that have to do with Eratosthenes? Did he "confirm" gravity or something?

In that light there is no way in which the experiment could have in those circumstances could ever have applied to a flat earth or any other shape that was not a sphere.

How so? He measured what, something like 500 stadia? What's to say that the earth didn't flatten out or take some other shape outside of that? He believed the earth was spherical and measured a small area in relation to what he thought was a spherical earth and extrapolated that out to what he thought was a spherical earth in totality. He confirmed nothing about the shape of the earth.

The experiment confirmed the spherical nature of the planet by revealing its circumference.

He calculated its circumference given the earth is spherical. There was no "confirmation" that the earth was (is) spherical. How you get there, I don't know. We can "confirm" the circumference and its shape now to a much greater degree of accuracy, but there was no "confirmation" of anything 2000+years ago. It was simply, "If the Earth is a sphere, the circumference would be X." That's it.

Stash nailed it. Eratosthenes started with initial assumption that Earth is spherical, and said "If that is true, this experiment would reveal the circumference of that sphere."

It's an if-then statement. If erf round, it's THIIIIIIIIIIIIIS big. If erf not round, calculation is indicative of some other part of the erf-brightskyball relationship.

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.

Again, if you need to start with Earth being round before discussing the results of the experiment, then it is impossible for the experiment to prove a round Earth.
That would be circular reasoning.

If you want any chance of this experiment being able to prove Earth is round, you need to entertain other possibilities to see if this experiment shows Earth is round. And that means seeing if it would hypothetically work on a flat Earth.
This is not difficult to understand.

Oh so you’ve gone all hypothetical now? I though we were being scientific?

So you have no understanding of science. Got it.
Science has lots of hypotheses.

Our Greek/Egyptian friend conducted an experiment that confirmed its spherical nature by revealing its circumference.

No, he didn't.
Based upon already knowing it was round, he measured its circumference.
That is not confirming it is spherical.

Again, in order for that to be confirming it is spherical, you need to have it only work for a sphere.
The fact the math works just as well for a FE means he did not confirm Earth is spherical.

Claiming that he confirmed Earth is a sphere because Earth must be a sphere makes as much sense as claiming my mouse proves Earth is a sphere because Earth must be a sphere.

Do you think my mouse proves Earth is a sphere?
After all, it couldn't possibly work on a FE.


Again, if you need to appeal to something else to exclude the possibility of a flat Earth, this experiment did not disprove a flat earth nor did it prove a round earth.
If you wish to claim such nonsense, then admit that my mouse proves Earth is round, to make it even clearer just how ridiculous your position is.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.

How so, explain.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

As far as I have been able to ascertain there are no circumstances under which a flat earth size planet  could ever form. Just not possible. A total affront to gravity.  Not even improbable.

What does that have to do with Eratosthenes? Did he "confirm" gravity or something?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

In that light there is no way in which the experiment could have in those circumstances could ever have applied to a flat earth or any other shape that was not a sphere.

How so? He measured what, something like 500 stadia? What's to say that the earth didn't flatten out or take some other shape outside of that? He believed the earth was spherical and measured a small area in relation to what he thought was a spherical earth and extrapolated that out to what he thought was a spherical earth in totality. He confirmed nothing about the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

The experiment confirmed the spherical nature of the planet by revealing its circumference.

He calculated its circumference given the earth is spherical. There was no "confirmation" that the earth was (is) spherical. How you get there, I don't know. We can "confirm" the circumference and its shape now to a much greater degree of accuracy, but there was no "confirmation" of anything 2000+years ago. It was simply, "If the Earth is a sphere, the circumference would be X." That's it.

Quite simple. In the real world A flat earth is an impossibility therefore the calculations could never have applied to one.

A flat earth is only possible in a fantasy or fictional universe and not in our one.

You are of course at liberty to rewrite the laws of physics explaining how a flat earth would be possible and form part of a dynamically stable solar system.

Show us all how an infinite plane can't exist.

Quote from: Stash on December 30, 2021, 10:24:45 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.

How so, explain.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

As far as I have been able to ascertain there are no circumstances under which a flat earth size planet  could ever form. Just not possible. A total affront to gravity.  Not even improbable.

What does that have to do with Eratosthenes? Did he "confirm" gravity or something?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

In that light there is no way in which the experiment could have in those circumstances could ever have applied to a flat earth or any other shape that was not a sphere.

How so? He measured what, something like 500 stadia? What's to say that the earth didn't flatten out or take some other shape outside of that? He believed the earth was spherical and measured a small area in relation to what he thought was a spherical earth and extrapolated that out to what he thought was a spherical earth in totality. He confirmed nothing about the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

The experiment confirmed the spherical nature of the planet by revealing its circumference.

He calculated its circumference given the earth is spherical. There was no "confirmation" that the earth was (is) spherical. How you get there, I don't know. We can "confirm" the circumference and its shape now to a much greater degree of accuracy, but there was no "confirmation" of anything 2000+years ago. It was simply, "If the Earth is a sphere, the circumference would be X." That's it.

Quite simple. In the real world A flat earth is an impossibility therefore the calculations could never have applied to one.

Wow, that is some crazy batshit non-logic that is weirder than I've seen in a while. You can't calculate something that doesn't exist therefore the calculations must only apply to something that does exist?

Tell that to brainiacs like this:

Calculation of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Summary:
The derivation of a formula for calculation dark energy is described. The result is tested on the basis of the available data from the MAX PLANCK Institute for Radio Astronomy. Further formulas are deducted. The dark matter of the cosmos is calculated. A balance sheet is drawn up. Conclusions are drawn.

Have you ever heard of theoretical physics?

Quite simple. In the real world A flat earth is an impossibility

i.e. it was shown before the experiment that Earth was round, therefore this experiment did not prove Earth is round; just like I said.
Quite simple.

Again, if the only way you can try to show this experiment indicates Earth is round is by requiring Earth to be round before the results of the experiment are discussed, then this experiment can never prove Earth is round.

Again, this discussion is not about if Earth is round or flat. It is about if this particular experiment proved Earth is round.
You have falsely claimed this experiment did prove Earth is round.
I correctly pointed out that Earth was already known to be round (some may call it proven to be round) before this experiment, and that all this experiment did was measure the circumference.

So you basically have a few choices:
1 - Admit you were wrong to falsely claim that this experiment proves Earth is round.
2 - Entertain the hypothetical possibility of Earth being flat and show how this experiment excludes the possibility of a flat Earth and instead proves Earth is round.

If you really insist on this insane absence of reasoning, then either claim that my mouse proves Earth is round, or explain why it doesn't.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 03:43:07 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 30, 2021, 10:24:45 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

His calculations could never in a month of Sundays be applied to a flat earth.

How so, explain.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

As far as I have been able to ascertain there are no circumstances under which a flat earth size planet  could ever form. Just not possible. A total affront to gravity.  Not even improbable.

What does that have to do with Eratosthenes? Did he "confirm" gravity or something?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

In that light there is no way in which the experiment could have in those circumstances could ever have applied to a flat earth or any other shape that was not a sphere.

How so? He measured what, something like 500 stadia? What's to say that the earth didn't flatten out or take some other shape outside of that? He believed the earth was spherical and measured a small area in relation to what he thought was a spherical earth and extrapolated that out to what he thought was a spherical earth in totality. He confirmed nothing about the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM

The experiment confirmed the spherical nature of the planet by revealing its circumference.

He calculated its circumference given the earth is spherical. There was no "confirmation" that the earth was (is) spherical. How you get there, I don't know. We can "confirm" the circumference and its shape now to a much greater degree of accuracy, but there was no "confirmation" of anything 2000+years ago. It was simply, "If the Earth is a sphere, the circumference would be X." That's it.

Quite simple. In the real world A flat earth is an impossibility therefore the calculations could never have applied to one.

Wow, that is some crazy batshit non-logic that is weirder than I've seen in a while. You can't calculate something that doesn't exist therefore the calculations must only apply to something that does exist?

Tell that to brainiacs like this:

Calculation of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Summary:
The derivation of a formula for calculation dark energy is described. The result is tested on the basis of the available data from the MAX PLANCK Institute for Radio Astronomy. Further formulas are deducted. The dark matter of the cosmos is calculated. A balance sheet is drawn up. Conclusions are drawn.

Have you ever heard of theoretical physics?

You know about theoretical physics.....wow. Tell me what you know. Though what that has to do about a mythical flat earth escapes me. While one is dealing with possible realities according to know laws the other is well grounded in fantasy and fiction. The two are not even poles apart.

Dark matter. I heard about it though not seen it possibly due to it being dark and difficult to see.

The funny thing about dark matter is that its currently being used to account for stuff we can't see or detect or so Ive read. You've possibly read the same stuff. Though I doubt you know much about dark matter as no one known knows much about it. So let's not kid ourselves in to thinking you know something I don't. Lets be honest anything you know you have just read about , just like me as I too can read.

You know something there are people around here who think they know stuff that no-one else knows. I think there's a medical term for that.

The monumental difference is while dark matter/ dark energy whatever it may turn out to be is a reality and part of the fabric of the universe governed by its laws. The flat earth on the other hand has nothing to do with this universe and could not possibly exist under the laws that govern it. Ask gravity its got a lot to say about that.

You want to talk about fantasy where anything goes and there are no rules well fine. You want to take about science thats a different thing, even theoretical science. Though I know for a cast iron fact you know no more about that than any other dude who reads stuff on the subject. I hope you're not kidding yourself that you do theoretical physics in your downstairs toilet, when in fact  all you're doing is having a dump.  I think Jack often gets confused between the two.

The scientific experiment we are discussing that was carried out all those years ago calculated the circumference of a spherical earth and thats a fact. It's also a fact, given it was conducted in the real world in a scientific manner, and that it could ever in a month of Sundays have been the case that the calculation could have applied to a flat earth. For as Ive pointed out gravity does not like flat things or so Ive read. You might have read that too. OK there are flat discs of matter out there that have been detected along with structures like Saturns rings but as you will no doubt know there are good physical reasons like angular momentum that account for that. Like me you have no doubt read it somewhere.

Only in the mind of someone dealing with outright fantasy could anyone even consider a calculation that helped reveal the nature of our spherical world could point to the possibility of our world being flat.

So let's not kid ourselves in to thinking you know something I don't. Lets be honest anything you know you have just read about , just like me as I too can read.

I suspect even a rock wouldn't have to kid itself to claim it knows something you don't.

You know about theoretical physics.....wow. Tell me what you know. Though what that has to do about a mythical flat earth escapes me.

It shows that science does deal with hypotheticals.

The scientific experiment we are discussing that was carried out all those years ago calculated the circumference of a spherical earth and thats a fact.

Yes, that is the fact, not what you previously claimed and refused to admit you were wrong about.
All it did was determine the circumference of Earth which was already known to be round.
It did not prove Earth was round.

Only in the mind of someone dealing with outright fantasy could anyone even consider a calculation that helped reveal the nature of our spherical world could point to the possibility of our world being flat.

Yes, like your outright fantasy that this experiment proved Earth was round.
In this fantasy of yours, Earth was not already known to be round. Instead people didn't know if it was round or flat. In this outright fantasy of yours, this experiment could be applied to a flat Earth or a round Earth.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 31, 2021, 05:13:06 AM

So let's not kid ourselves in to thinking you know something I don't. Lets be honest anything you know you have just read about , just like me as I too can read.

I suspect even a rock wouldn't have to kid itself to claim it knows something you don't.

So John other than the earth not being a planet….and for sure that’s a new one on me. I’m pretty sure it’s a new one on the pile of rocks we are standing on.

So John how did the revelation of this brand new ‘knowledge’ come to you? Are you thinking of publishing it?

The problem of knowledge acquisition is a real problem for you and some others as you hate to concede the top down nature of it.

The problem of knowledge acquisition is a real problem for you and some others as you hate to concede the top down nature of it.

So you are discarding science and embracing religion?
Because religion is what has top-down knowledge, where they claim all knowledge ultimately comes from God, who gives it out via prophets and so on.
Science instead works from a bottom-up approach.
Anyone can study the world and begin building knowledge from those studies. Other people can either do the same, or build upon the knowledge those who came before determined.

But yes, that does seem to be a very big problem for you.

Anyway, have you figured out a way to show Eratosthenes proved Earth was a sphere without needing to appeal to Earth being known to be spherical before his experiment? If not, are you ready to admit you were wrong to claim he proved Earth was a sphere?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 01, 2022, 12:44:51 AM

The problem of knowledge acquisition is a real problem for you and some others as you hate to concede the top down nature of it.

So you are discarding science and embracing religion?
Because religion is what has top-down knowledge, where they claim all knowledge ultimately comes from God, who gives it out via prophets and so on.
Science instead works from a bottom-up approach.
Anyone can study the world and begin building knowledge from those studies. Other people can either do the same, or build upon the knowledge those who came before determined.

But yes, that does seem to be a very big problem for you.

Anyway, have you figured out a way to show Eratosthenes proved Earth was a sphere without needing to appeal to Earth being known to be spherical before his experiment? If not, are you ready to admit you were wrong to claim he proved Earth was a sphere?

Oh..  back tracking no mention of the possibility of it being flat! Well that’s at least some progress.

Apparently the new theory is that earth is not a planet? Should you be considering that?

The whole point you are missing, due in part to your mind being infused with flat earth clap trap is there was never any doubt that the earth was not a sphere? Being flat was never an option. The whole notion of it being one is the fantastical creation of sone 19th century scam artist who somehow has attracted a bunch of ignorant followers.

The fact that YOU want to take them seriously is your problem. The very fact that you credit them with being able to create scientific models and theories is on you.

The whole point of the experiment was to give a value for the circumference of the known spherical earth. Only mad flat earth types go on about the myth of sone ultimate proof.

The experiment yielded what it set out to do give a reasonably accurate answer for its circumference.

If you measure the circumference of a ball is there any other option for that ball other than being a sphere?

When that experiment was done was there any other option for the earth?

The notion that either the ball or the earth could be any other shape other than spherical does not come into it.

You say you are fond of logic but right from the start your position was built on the false premise that being flat was an option.

The truth is, and you say you like the truth, it never was.

Oh..  back tracking no mention of the possibility of it being flat! Well that’s at least some progress.

No, no backtracking, just a complete lack of understanding from you.

Like I have explained, if you accept that there was already enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that Earth is round, to exclude the possibility of these calculations applying to a flat Earth, then it CANNOT be proof of a round Earth. This means you are wrong, and accepting that you are wrong.
If instead you want to continue down the path of pretending this experiment proved Earth is round, then you CANNOT appeal to Earth being round to exclude the possibility of a flat Earth. That means you need to entertain the possibility of the results of the experiment being applied to a flat Earth.

The whole point you are missing

I'm not missing anything here.
The whole point you are missing is that HE DID NOT PROVE EARTH IS ROUND!
It really is that simple.
It was already known that Earth was round. As such, with his experiment he made no attempt to prove Earth was round, instead he just set out to measure the size of a round Earth. He didn't care about the possibility of a flat Earth as it was already known that Earth was round. But this means he didn't prove Earth was round.

And because of your irrational hatred of the FE, you cannot bring yourself to admit any point apparently in favour of the RE is wrong or any point apparently in favour of the FE is correct.
This causes you to make false claims and then double down on them and try to twist your way out rather than simply admitting that you were wrong.

You being unable to admit reality, such as this experiment not proving a RE, or the possibility of scientific FE models, is on you, not me.

The whole point of the experiment was to give a value for the circumference of the known spherical earth. Only mad flat earth types go on about the myth of sone ultimate proof.

Just like I said. Notice how it isn't to prove Earth is round?
But what did you say?

He proved the earth was a sphere 2000 years ago which was a big deal then.

So the "mad flat Earth type" here is YOU.

Are you willing to admit that you were wrong when you falsely claimed that he proved Earth was a sphere?
If not, prove that he proved Earth was a sphere. This means you cannot start with Earth being spherical.

When that experiment was done was there any other option for the earth?
The notion that either the ball or the earth could be any other shape other than spherical does not come into it.
You say you are fond of logic but right from the start your position was built on the false premise that being flat was an option.

Again, this is only the case if you are willing to admit that he did not prove Earth was a sphere and that you were wrong to claim he did.
Are you willing to admit that?

With your false claim that he did prove Earth was a sphere, that means you need to build your position on the false premise that shapes other than a sphere were options, that being flat was an option. As if you need to start with Earth being a sphere, then you cannot prove Earth is a sphere.