Proposed Eratosthenes experiment

  • 24 Replies
  • 717 Views
Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« on: November 03, 2024, 10:30:53 AM »
To measure the curvature of the Earth with the same method as used by Eratosthenes some 2000 years ago. It seems that the best country (and it can be better if one can remain within the border of a single country to avoid hassle) is in fact the United States. The two points selected are the southern tip of Texas, in the town of Edinburgh, and the border with Canada in North Dakota, the town of Pembina.

https://www.distance.to/26.28824342819985,-98.18083555536208/48.96352040623877,-97.24624682747827

This is an almost perfect north-south route. The distance is 2523 km. Unlike Eratosthenes we can't rely on a presumed 90° result at either spot, so both measurements will have to be taken. Although a single team can do both measurements, this would require some fraught travel and a slight inaccuracy in the result, it is better to have two teams, one in each place. The teams can communicate so that they make their measurements at the exact same time, at solar noon.

The Globe predicts that on any given day the result would be an angle difference of  22.7 degrees.

If the experiment is made repeatedly on different days, and always yields this same result (as it should according to the Globe), then that is a result for the Globe. If the outcome is something very different, then that is a result against the Globe.

This is a falsification attempt against the Globe, just like the Antarctica 24 hours is a falsification attempt against the Flat.

This experiment should be well within the means of the Flat Earth society. Of course, different points on the Earth can be selected.

So, what are you waiting for, Flat Earthers? Disprove the Globe already!

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3571
  • God winds the universe
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2024, 05:06:32 PM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
Hell, there is more evidence for my existence.

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.

How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?

Instead we have shaky accounts from other sources.
Quote
Earlier estimates of the circumference of Earth had been made (for example, Aristotle says that “some mathematicians” had obtained a value of 400,000 stadia), but no details of their methods have survived.
Quote
An account of Eratosthenes’ method is preserved in the Greek astronomer Cleomedes’ Meteora. The exact length of the units (stadia) he used is doubtful, and the accuracy of his result is therefore uncertain.

And we don't really know Eratosthenes's methods or measurements either, because they were burned.

Quote
Eratosthenes’ only surviving work is Catasterisms, a book about the constellations, which gives a description and story for each constellation, as well as a count of the number of stars contained in it, but the attribution of this work has been doubted by some scholars.

Off to a great start!


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2024, 08:06:25 PM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
So what?  Does it really matter if he ever existed?

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.
And yet we still know about him and his experiment.  It's almost as if the library of Alexandria wasn't the only source of historical information at the time.

How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?
Contemporary historians, perhaps.  Again, does it really matter?  Rather than attack the man, why don't you look at the methodology of the experiment itself and let us know if you can find any flaws in the methodology.  I can tell you from personal experience that the methodology does work because I performed a small scale version of that experiment on a globe in a high school science class and it worked as advertised.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2024, 11:41:22 PM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence
And as I said before, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Religious BS like Christianity and FEism needs that history.
Reality and science don't.
It doesn't matter if Eratosthenes existed or not.
What matters is if the experiment can be done and what the results are.

As you clearly trust no one, it wouldn't matter if he did exist and did an experiment which irrefutably proved Earth is round; as you would just dismiss it as a lie.

So instead of going down this path of pure BS, can you make any objection to the experiment itself?

Of course not. You know such simple experiments destroy your FE fantasy, so you need to grasp at whatever BS you can to pretend to have an objection.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2024, 12:35:51 AM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
Hell, there is more evidence for my existence.

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.

How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?



All the more reason to do the experiment!

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2024, 02:12:26 AM »
this reply is NOT about science. It's about ethics.


Religious BS like Christianity and FEism needs that history.


Not the 1st time that JackBlack qualifies the Bible and Christianity as BS. Maybe he thinks that, without them, the world would be the same as it is now? Or maybe even a better place?

Let's see how it was BEFORE.

A primitive tribe attacks another, kills everybody, sets fire to the camp, throws the children into the fire (Canetti, Mass and Power).

Assyrian kings BOASTED, in their official inscriptions: “The country of So-and-so I have conquered. Their villages I have burned down. Their little boys, their little girls I HAVE DISHONOURED”

In 416 BC, the Athenians took the city of Melos, killed all males over 14, raped the women,  sold the women and children into slavery. Just because Melos wanted to stay neutral in the war between Athens and Sparta (not that Athenians were especially evil, it was common usage in those times)

Slavery was considered natural and normal. As it was going to the slave market to buy a child and use him/her as a sexual object.

Enter the Jews.

A bunch of nomad shepherds, briefly able to build a small kingdom, then defeated and deported by one of the military superpowers of the time

Everyone would have expected them to fade away from history, and that now we wouldn't have memory of them more than of Lydians and Paphlagonians.

Instead, they kept clinging to their faith, modified their faith in a more spiritual sense, and built a literary monument which, through Christianity (and Islam, too) ended up changing the world FOREVER.

(read Thomas Cahill, The gifts of the Jews)

Result: the world (with the partial exception of countries where Hinduism or Buddhism prevails) has BECOME Jewish.

Remember the prophet Nathan going to David (the King!) to tell him to his face “You behaved like a thief. You have STOLEN this woman, and for good measure you caused the death of her husband”.

We have so internalized this ethical dimension that it's not easy for us to notice how this was, in ancient times, an ABSOLUTE, STUNNING NOVELTY.

In every African or Polynesian tribe, it was a matter of course that the king takes for himself all the women he wishes. And can you imagine the High Priest of Marduk going to the King of Babylon and speaking him this way? His head would roll.

Instead, David REPENTS.

This is a CORNERSTONE of all modern morality, at planetary level. Because EVERY society today (at least at facade level) accepts the idea that there is a principle of justice ABOVE every human authority.

This idea has its beginning THERE, in the Bible (2 Samuel 12, 7)

So the Bible cannot be assumed as a source of scientific knowledge (and this does not make it ridiculous BS, the Jews just shared the cosmological notions common to other peoples in those times).

And yes, we MUST resist those who want to impose on all of us a strict Biblical literalism, not forgetting that they often are just poor people frightened by the complexity of today's reality

But, with all the chilling things in it (the commandments about slavery, and worse), the Bible must be regarded, in its entirety, as a FUNDAMENTAL step (hopefully, not the last one) in the evolution of ethics (OUR ethics)

e. g. let's not forget that the conclusion that slavery is inhuman was reached (yes, after a very long time!) within a Christian society. Why not within the extremely ancient Hindu lore? Why not within the  extremely sophisticate Chinese culture? Why not within Islam?

(because of the Enlightenment, not of Christianity? But the Enlightenment is SON of Christianity. A rebellious son, which rebels against a form of Christianity which has become a suffocating official ideology in service of the powers that be. But it's hard to imagine the centrality of every single human being, postulated within the Enlightenment, without the absolute importance of every single human soul affirmed by Christianity)

And yes, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus (his Sermon on the Mount another absolute novelty, still very far from being enacted) was just a mentally disturbed young man. But we surely should welcome some other mentally disturbed young men of that kind. Because Jesus' message (be it of human or divine origin) is the BEST thing mankind has received so far. Even better than Buddha's.

So, please, no more talking of the Bible and Christianity as BS. Their being scientifically inaccurate doesn't take a bit from their being of immense ethical value.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2024, 08:35:25 AM by marco mineri »

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2024, 02:19:18 AM »

...

And yes, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus (his Sermon on the Mount another absolute novelty, still very far from being enacted) was just a mentally disturbed young man. But we surely should welcome some other mentally disturbed young men of that kind. Because Jesus' message (be it of human or divine origin) is the BEST thing mankind has received so far. Even better than Buddha's.

So, please, no more talking of the Bible and Christianism as BS. Their being scientifically inaccurate doesn't take a bit from their being of immense ethical value.

I tend to agree. The sweeping victory of science and rationalism in western culture is enabled by christianity.

I think certain REers might well tone down their rhetoric.

Btw, it's not "a mentally disturbed young man", it's "a very naughty boy".

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2024, 11:42:05 AM »
this reply is NOT about science. It's about ethics.
Which is something the Bible and Christianity lacks.

Not the 1st time that JackBlack qualifies the Bible and Christianism as BS. Maybe he thinks that, without them, the world would be the same as it is now? Or maybe even a better place?
I qualify it as BS because it is a work of fiction, so if you want to discuss that, that is science and history, not ethics.

If you want to discuss ethics, that would be discussing how Christianity is still holding society back.

Let's see how it was BEFORE.
Or why don't we look at what Christianity allows, or the Bible in general.
Such as sentencing someone to death for the act of collecting firewood on Saturday?
Or how about multiple instances of genocide because they weren't God's chosen people?
Except they don't always kill everyone, sometimes they will keep the young girls to have as sex slaves which they will call a wife.
Or how about the permission to have slaves, including beating them to within an inch of death as it is your property?
Or how about the punishment for raping a non-betrothed virgin - marrying her and paying her father.
Or how about the punishment for homosexuality being death?

The Bible is not a source of morality.
Most Christians today are moral in spite of the Bible.
Although plenty still cling to bits of immorality in the Bible and use it to hold society back.
Imagine how much easier the fight for gay rights would be if we didn't have garbage like the Bible holding us back?

This is a CORNERSTONE of all modern morality, at planetary level. Because EVERY society today (at least at facade level) accepts the idea that there is a principle of justice ABOVE every human authority.
Which does not need any deity.

This idea has its beginning THERE, in the Bible (2 Samuel 12, 7)
No, it didn't.
This idea had it's beginning long before the Bible.

But, with all the chilling things in it (the commandments about slavery, and worse), the Bible must be regarded, in its entirety, as a FUNDAMENTAL step (hopefully, not the last one) in the evolution of ethics (OUR ethics)
Which does not mean it has any place in a civilised society or that the world be worse off without it, or that it isn't morally bankrupt.

e. g. let's not forget that the conclusion that slavery is inhuman was reached
In direct defiance of Christianity.
Because of Christians internally realising how morally bankrupt the Bible is and rejecting commands they don't agree with.
Let's not forget just how rampant slavery was in this Christian society, and how plenty of Christians still wanted it.
Let's not forget that the society you are appealing to is one in which they had realised religion is not to rule people and that people have the right to be free of religious rule; i.e. a society that was breaking away from Christianity.

That isn't Christianity causing people to recognise slavery is bad. That is people recognising slavery is bad in spite of Christianity.

Because Jesus' message (be it of human or divine origin) is the BEST thing mankind has received so far. Even better than Buddha's.
No, it isn't.
You can easily cherry picks to make it out to be good, but you can likewise do the same to show it is bad.
Consider what Jesus' message actually was:
You will burn in hell unless you beg me for forgiveness for being the human we made you as.
That is NOT a good message.
That is a morally bankrupt message.
And there are even worse parts, such as Jesus saying you must hate everyone except him.

So no, I will continue to refer to the Bible and Christianity as morally bankrupt BS with no ethical value in this modern age which is holding people back morally.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2024, 08:30:49 AM »
Apparently JackBlack has not read me with due attention. He conflates me with the US fundamentalists  who want to impose to everyone a Christian sharia.

(oops! I see now that “Christianism” in US has taken the derogatory meaning “political ideology centered around Christian fundamentalism”. So maybe is this the origin of a misunderstanding? Anyway, now I'm going to substitute “Christianism” with “Christianity”, in my previous reply too)


Or why don't we look at what Christianity allows, or the Bible in general.
Such as sentencing someone to death for the act of collecting firewood on Saturday?
Or how about multiple instances of genocide because they weren't God's chosen people?
Except they don't always kill everyone, sometimes they will keep the young girls to have as sex slaves which they will call a wife.
Or how about the permission to have slaves, including beating them to within an inch of death as it is your property?
Or how about the punishment for raping a non-betrothed virgin - marrying her and paying her father.
Or how about the punishment for homosexuality being death?


These are just the chilling things I alluded to


But, with all the chilling things in it (the commandments about slavery, and worse)...


which I quote when discussing with fundamentalists (or FEs who yell “it's in the Bible!”) and which are NOT part, not only of Christianity (Christians have never even observed the most innocuous dietary rules) but not even (at least, I hope) of the most orthodox Hebraism of today.

I said: the Bible is a FUNDAMENTAL step in the evolution of ethics, NOT the LAST ONE. Thanks to God – or whatever – we have progressed a good bit.

(yes, there are many black pages in the history of Christianity. Burning of heretics and so on. This happens EVERY time a faith or ideology gives rise to a “church” whose “high priests” see themselves as custodians of the absolute truth)

But our current ethics IS the Christian ethics, with its roots in the Bible (if not, where do you think it comes from?). With the notable exception, yes, of morality about sexuality – homosexuality in particular.

The question is: would we have the same ethics (maybe unrelated to any religious belief) if the ancient Jews had been wiped away from history?

Not easy to answer. We should look at societies relatively uninfluenced by Christianity. Primitive tribes are not reassuring. Some are meek, some cruel and aggressive. In ancient India, society was divided in castes, and anyway ethics was and is embedded in a religious faith. In China Confucianism was more a philosophy for the “superior man”, and the single individual has always been a speck of dust. As for Buddhism (but maybe I don't know enough about it), I have always regarded it as a sublime religious philosophy (or philosophical religion) which, though, abstains from trying to change the world.

One thing seems certain: the TOTALLY revolutionary idea that an orphan, stranger and destitute child is worth, in personal dignity, as much as the Emperor, is an outcome of Christianity only.

I understand how you can be enraged toward those fundamentalists who try to use the Bible as a weapon to impose their vision of the world (and I don't consider them so much Christians, they really lack charity) and how you can assume – as they do – that Christianity and Bible are the same thing (they are not. Christianity (especially modern Christianity) is based much more on the Gospels than on the Old Testament)

But saying that the Bible, or Christianity, are ethical BS just because we have progressed further is like saying that Eratosthenes, Ptolemy and Hipparchus were stupid because they didn't realize that the Earth rotates.

Just some other thoughts


I qualify it as BS because it is a work of fiction, so if you want to discuss that, that is science and history, not ethics.


I call fiction a novel. Texts, in all ancient cultures, which contain myth, a bit of history and reflections about good and evil pertain to the sphere of ethics, too.


If you want to discuss ethics, that would be discussing how Christianity is still holding society back.


Not Christianity but religious fundamentalism. Christian or, somewhere else, Islamic or Hindu. Popular masses, scared about the future, seek refuge in their past. If they couldn't use religion, they would use something else. Ethnicity, ideology, patriotism. The 20th century, during which the influence of religions has hit its historical minimum, has witnessed the worst massacres of history perpetrated in name of everything but religion


This is a CORNERSTONE of all modern morality, at planetary level. Because EVERY society today (at least at facade level) accepts the idea that there is a principle of justice ABOVE every human authority.

Which does not need any deity.


Could be, but I doubt that David (or anybody in the ancient world) would have agreed about this without the image of a thundering God behind Nathan. As I doubt that you could have turned the ferocious Vikings of old into the meek Norwegians of today preaching them the Kantian categorical imperative. You really had to tell them “You're going to burn in hell forever”


This idea has its beginning THERE, in the Bible (2 Samuel 12, 7)

No, it didn't.
This idea had it's beginning long before the Bible.


where, then? In Chinese culture, which anyway couldn't have influenced us? Or in the Greek “moral poets”, like Simonides of Ceos? Those were lucubrations of intellectuals, which had little or no influence. Anyway, there's not the least sign that such an idea had some effect at the time of the Roman Empire


But, with all the chilling things in it (the commandments about slavery, and worse), the Bible must be regarded, in its entirety, as a FUNDAMENTAL step (hopefully, not the last one) in the evolution of ethics (OUR ethics)

Which does not mean it has any place in a civilised society or that the world be worse off without it,


Greeks, with slavery and oppression of women, considered themselves a highly civilized society. So maybe Christianity still makes a difference


 or that it isn't morally bankrupt.


you could as well call Euclid's Elementa as logically bankrupt, for their lack of rigorousness in stating axioms, primitive concepts and rules of inference. Should we lose all respect for Euclid, just because we can do better (as dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, Newton would say)?


e. g. let's not forget that the conclusion that slavery is inhuman was reached
In direct defiance of Christianity.
Because of Christians internally realising how morally bankrupt the Bible is and rejecting commands they don't agree with.


Abolitionists considered themselves Christians. What right have you to tell them they were not. You might argue that they were the product of the Enlightenment, not of Christianity. I offered the opinion that the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on the personal freedom – even in the religious sphere - of the single individual, could hardly have developed without the Christianity. Prove me wrong by showing an example of something similar to the Enlightenment (especially in relation to religious freedom) in a non-Christian society.


That isn't Christianity causing people to recognise slavery is bad. That is people recognising slavery is bad in spite of Christianity.


Where have you read that slavery is a Christian dogma?


Consider what Jesus' message actually was:
You will burn in hell unless you beg me for forgiveness for being the human we made you as.


I don't remember this from Jesus. Please quote


And there are even worse parts, such as Jesus saying you must hate everyone except him.


Are you referring to “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children....”? Inadequate translation of an Hebraic expression. And what about “Love thy neighbour as thyself” or “Love thine enemies”?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2024, 09:47:11 PM by marco mineri »

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2024, 01:01:00 PM »
Apparently JackBlack has not read me with due attention. He conflates me with the US fundamentalists  who want to impose to everyone a Christian sharia.
Quite the opposite.
You appear to have not bothered reading what I have said.

If your argument to defend Christianity needs to ignore what Christianity actually promotes and allows, and instead focus on the actions of so called "Christians" who directly defy the teachings of Christianity, you aren't defending Christianity; instead you are showing the problems with it.

Just using slavery as a simple example.
The question to focus on should not be some convoluted BS about who opposes slavery. Instead it is much simpler.
Does Christianity permit or prohibit slavery?
And the simple answer is that it permits it.

The Christians who opposed slavery did not do so because of Christianity. They did it in spite of Christianity.


Or to put it another way, if you need to ignore the fundamentals of something to pretend it is good, it clearly isn't good.
If people need to ignore fundamental parts of it to be good people, then it is not a way to be good.

You are basically saying that if someone actually followed what Christianity teaches/commands, they would not be good.


These are just the chilling things I alluded to
Yes, the chilling things which clearly demonstrate how morally bankrupt Christianity is.
The things so called Christians ignore to try to be good people in spite of Christianity.

That does NOT show Christianity is moral or ethical. It shows people who claim to follow Christianity can be moral or ethical because they have the morals or ethics to reject morally bankrupt parts of Christianity.

I said: the Bible is a FUNDAMENTAL step in the evolution of ethics
And I said, that in no way means it is not BS, or that it has any place in modern/civilised society.

But our current ethics IS the Christian ethics
No, they aren't.
Our current ethics defy Christian ethics.

Again, these are not people being good because of Christianity. They are people being good in spite of it.

if not, where do you think it comes from?
From people.
Where do you think the crap in the Bible came from?
Other people, more primitive and less moral people.

The question is: would we have the same ethics (maybe unrelated to any religious belief) if the ancient Jews had been wiped away from history?
Considering the vast majority of ethics are fairly uniform throughout civilisations, including before Christianity and Judaism; and the more novel aspects are not from Christianity, almost certainly.

Not easy to answer. We should look at societies relatively uninfluenced by Christianity.
No. As above, you should look at our current ethics, and compare them with Christianity.
What does Christianity say about things like slavery and homosexuality and the rights of women.
How does these things compare with our ethics?
We find for a lot, there is no match. So Christianity is clearly not the reason for them.
Then you should look at what does match, and see how that compares to other cultures. Things like not murdering others. How many societies not influenced by Christianity have rules against murder?

Primitive tribes are not reassuring. Some are meek, some cruel and aggressive.
Just like the primitive Jewish tribes described in the Bible.

In ancient India, society was divided in castes, and anyway ethics was and is embedded in a religious faith.
Just like medieval Europe.

One thing seems certain: the TOTALLY revolutionary idea that an orphan, stranger and destitute child is worth, in personal dignity, as much as the Emperor, is an outcome of Christianity only.
No, it isn't.

I understand how you can be enraged toward those fundamentalists
I'm not.
I'm opposed to anyone who seems to think the Bible or Christianity in general is a good source of morality, given how morally bankrupt it is.

who try to use the Bible as a weapon to impose their vision of the world (and I don't consider them so much Christians, they really lack charity)
And I would consider people like you and who oppose slavery as not Christian, as they are directly opposing the will of God as stated in the Bible.
You more appear to be upset that these people show just how abhorrent Christianity really is, and that you would only accept people as "Christians" if they reject the parts of Christianity you don't like.

But saying that the Bible, or Christianity, are ethical BS just because we have progressed further is like saying that Eratosthenes, Ptolemy and Hipparchus were stupid because they didn't realize that the Earth rotates.
No, because they aren't claiming any divine insight which has provided this knowledge; while Christianity claims to have the commands of a divine being.
Quite different.

I call fiction a novel.
And I don't care what you want to restrict fiction to.
It is fictional.
It being myth doesn't mean it isn't fiction.

Not Christianity but religious fundamentalism.
i.e. Christianity.
If Christianity was good and was not holding us back, then Christian fundamentalism would not be.

The 20th century, during which the influence of religions has hit its historical minimum, has witnessed the worst massacres of history perpetrated in name of everything but religion
We have seen plenty as a direct result of religion.
Not to mention, those "massacres" often have a religious element as well.

Could be, but I doubt that David (or anybody in the ancient world) would have agreed about this without the image of a thundering God
We are talking about the modern world.
But even in the ancient world, that is just your doubt.

Meanwhile, that "thundering God" was typically then used to defy morality, such as using it as justification to wipe out another group of people.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2024, 01:08:23 PM »
where, then?
How about the ancient cultures of mesapatomia?
You know the ones which had polytheistic religions which Judaism sprung from?

Greeks, with slavery and oppression of women, considered themselves a highly civilized society. So maybe Christianity still makes a difference
Or, maybe given that plenty of Christian cultures had slavery and oppression of women, including until quite recently, Christianity doesn't make the difference you want to pretend.

If your nonsense was true, and that Christianity played such a crucial role, then you would expect that as the Roman empire because Christian, and Europe in general became Christian, that slavery would be prohibited and women would have equal rights to men.
Instead, for well over a thousand years, slavery and oppression of women continued. It wasn't until quite recently that slavery in the west was outlawed, and that prohibition on slavery was opposed by plenty of Christians. Oppression of women was even more recent, and there are still plenty of people opposed to that, including lots of Christians.

So no, perhaps Christianity didn't make a difference at all, and instead it was modernisation, with improvement in our technology reducing our reliance on fairy tale beings and so on that led to people starting to reject this old religious BS.

you could as well call Euclid's Elementa as logically bankrupt, for their lack of rigorousness in stating axioms, primitive concepts and rules of inference.
No, I wouldn't.

Abolitionists considered themselves Christians.
I don't give a damn.
What matters is that Christianity itself makes it clear that slavery is okay.

Prove me wrong
Not how it works.
You need to prove yourself correct.
You need to explain just what elements of the enlightenment required Christianity.

Where have you read that slavery is a Christian dogma?
The Bible.

I don't remember this from Jesus. Please quote
I paraphrased.
But it is a key message of Christianity.
One example is John 5:24:
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

Then you also have things like Mark 9:42-49:
42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

And Matthew 4:17
rom that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Are you referring to “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children....”? Inadequate translation of an Hebraic expression. And what about “Love thy neighbour as thyself” or “Love thine enemies”?
Yet you make no attempt to show what the correct translation is?
Normally the excuse given is that it is hate by comparison, which is still quite a horrible message.

And yes, there are other parts as well, some which contradict others, but that doesn't give you a free pass to ignore the bits you don't like and claim Jesus' message is the best message ever.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2024, 01:21:19 PM »
Is this enough words on Christianity on this thread?

Eratosthenes was BC in fact.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2024, 02:28:11 PM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
Hell, there is more evidence for my existence.

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.
The library of Alexandria, was not the only library, just the largest of it time.
Quote
How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?

Instead we have shaky accounts from other sources.
Quote
Earlier estimates of the circumference of Earth had been made (for example, Aristotle says that “some mathematicians” had obtained a value of 400,000 stadia), but no details of their methods have survived.
Quote
An account of Eratosthenes’ method is preserved in the Greek astronomer Cleomedes’ Meteora. The exact length of the units (stadia) he used is doubtful, and the accuracy of his result is therefore uncertain.

And we don't really know Eratosthenes's methods or measurements either, because they were burned.

Quote
Eratosthenes’ only surviving work is Catasterisms, a book about the constellations, which gives a description and story for each constellation, as well as a count of the number of stars contained in it, but the attribution of this work has been doubted by some scholars.

Off to a great start!

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2024, 02:52:53 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_Earth's_circumference

The measurement of Earth's circumference is the most famous among the results obtained by Eratosthenes,[13] who estimated that the meridian has a length of 252,000 stadia (39,060 to 40,320 kilometres (24,270 to 25,050 mi)), with an error on the real value between −2.4% and +0.8% (assuming a value for the stadion between 155 and 160 metres (509 and 525 ft)).[2] Eratosthenes described his arc measurement technique,[14] in a book entitled On the Measure of the Earth, which has not been preserved. However, a simplified version of the method has been preserved, as described by Cleomedes.[15]
« Last Edit: November 07, 2024, 02:58:06 PM by Torve »

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2024, 02:55:03 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleomedes#On_the_Circular_Motions_of_the_Celestial_Bodies

This book is the original source for the well-known story of how Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference. Many modern mathematicians and astronomers believe the description to be reasonable (and believe Eratosthenes' achievement to be one of the more impressive accomplishments of ancient astronomy).


Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2024, 03:03:46 PM »
Eratosthenes measurement is not complicated. It is in fact so simple that a child can understand it and probably perform it.

FEers have done at least as challenging measurements in the past.

If anyone knows of any substantive impediment to performing Eratosthenes' experiment, do speak up.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3571
  • God winds the universe
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2024, 04:10:33 AM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
So what?  Does it really matter if he ever existed?

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.
And yet we still know about him and his experiment.  It's almost as if the library of Alexandria wasn't the only source of historical information at the time.

How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?
Contemporary historians, perhaps.  Again, does it really matter?  Rather than attack the man, why don't you look at the methodology of the experiment itself and let us know if you can find any flaws in the methodology.  I can tell you from personal experience that the methodology does work because I performed a small scale version of that experiment on a globe in a high school science class and it worked as advertised.

It doesn't matter to me. I don't have a vested interest in his existence. If you're using this to prove the curved shadow and all that, and you're using phony research from a phony man, you're doing the same as my dad wanted to do days ago.

We had a board to was sagging because nothing was under it after we cut the extra wood out. It was on a deck, and my dad wanted to use longer bit of wood to push it down. No, this sort of architectural cheating eventually causes the  wood on the inside to split apart as it forced into an unnatural position and it has nothing to stand on as it expands and contracts from varying moisture and heat/cold. It also gives the other end nothing to stand on when it suddenly collapses.

The point is, you can't have a foundation built on dishonesty. If the guy isn't real, then what he taught isn't real.
Whereas, if Jesus wasn't real, then his followers made him real. How did they do this? Did they, like the bad architect, try to force a false image? No, there's another way to fix wood that has nothing to stand on. You crawl under it, and grab a bit of wood and nail it into the cross-section so the board has something to rest upon. So also, even if Jesus the person had no historical foundation (he does), the martyrs of the first to third century are the Body of Christ. They showed through their deaths what it means to die on the cross for others.

The texts of Eratosthenes are like that hanging board. And unlike the nain driven into the hard wood of the cross-piece, it is nailed over top of to cover up what is missing.


 

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2024, 04:41:46 AM »
It doesn't matter to me. I don't have a vested interest in his existence.
And as stated, his existence doesn't matter.
What matters is the experiment and its results.
Results which are consistent with a RE, and when the experiment is modified to remove ambiguity, results which are incompatible with a FE.

If you're using this to prove the curved shadow and all that, and you're using phony research from a phony man, you're doing the same as my dad wanted to do days ago.
And this shows you really are invested. Not in his existence, but is his lack of existence.
You are so desperate to ignore the experiment and dismiss it all as phony.

The point is, you can't have a foundation built on dishonesty.
Which is why your nonsense doesn't work.

Meanwhile, the basic geometry holds regardless of if he existed.

Again, unlike your religious BS, that basic math and experimental results is what matters.
While Christianity is lies upon lies if Jesus wasn't real, this experiment still holds and can still be used to determine the radius of Earth, or if appropriately modified to show Earth is round.

Now, care to try to address the experiment?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2024, 07:41:35 AM »
The point is, you can't have a foundation built on dishonesty. If the guy isn't real, then what he taught isn't real.
So, if the guy is real, then what he taught is real, right?  Fortunately there is plenty of evidence that Eratosthenes existed and made a number of contributions to math and science in his day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
https://www.worldhistory.org/Eratosthenes/
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Eratosthenes/

Historians seem to know an awful lot about someone who you claim didn't exist.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2024, 07:09:21 AM »
One thing seems certain: the TOTALLY revolutionary idea that an orphan, stranger and destitute child is worth, in personal dignity, as much as the Emperor, is an outcome of Christianity only.
No, it isn't.

I thought that only flat-earthers, lacking an argument, could think that a simple “No, it isn't” is an adequate reply

Gilles de Rais – the infamous Bluebeard – raped and killed a number of children. He was, for this, tried and hanged. Though he was a noble of the highest rank in the kingdom of France. This in medieval times, long before the Enlightenment. If you know about a similar episode in the Arab or Chinese world, please let us know.

After their legalization in 313, Christian communities created the first organizations to assist the poor (Peter Brown, Poverty and leadership in the later Roman Empire). First, at least, in the western world. I don't know too much about the history of China but I wouldn't bet on it, at least from the government. Maybe from Buddhist monasteries (another religion at work)?

Greeks, with slavery and oppression of women, considered themselves a highly civilized society. So maybe Christianity still makes a difference
Or, maybe given that plenty of Christian cultures had slavery and oppression of women, including until quite recently, Christianity doesn't make the difference you want to pretend.

If your nonsense was true, and that Christianity played such a crucial role, then you would expect that as the Roman empire because Christian, and Europe in general became Christian, that slavery would be prohibited and women would have equal rights to men.
Instead, for well over a thousand years, slavery and oppression of women continued. It wasn't until quite recently that slavery in the west was outlawed, and that prohibition on slavery was opposed by plenty of Christians. Oppression of women was even more recent, and there are still plenty of people opposed to that, including lots of Christians.

So no, perhaps Christianity didn't make a difference at all, and instead it was modernisation, with improvement in our technology reducing our reliance on fairy tale beings and so on that led to people starting to reject this old religious BS.

Your attitude is “all or nothing”. Step-by-step improvements, for you, don't matter.

Those biblical commandments which make us cringe could well have been an improvement with respect to common usages of that time. “If one beats his slave to death, be it murder”. You don't find this anywhere else in the ancient world

Slavery was not common in medieval Europe. And if you have sources that slaves were treated as cruelly as in ancient times (as current usage, not picking up single cases) let me know.

Slavery only became common with the colonization of America. In every time and culture you can find people who, for personal interest, go against official principles.

Protests against the cruelty vs natives were those of Catholics priests (e.g. Las Casas)

In 17th and 18th century, Arab travellers in Europe marveled at how Christians respected women (Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe). “Christians – says one of them – apparently do so out of love for Myriam, the mother of Issa (Jesus)”

Prove me wrong
Not how it works.
You need to prove yourself correct.
You need to explain just what elements of the enlightenment required Christianity.

Reversing the burden of proof? I already made my point (but a whole book would be needed):
Christianity is a very individualistic religion. It's the soul of every single individual which matters, not only for him but in an absolute way. From this to conclude that every single individual has certain rights by nature it's only one step.  17 centuries to do it? But never done elsewhere. In China the absolute power of the Emperor was never put in discussion before western ideas reached it.

Where have you read that slavery is a Christian dogma?
The Bible.

See above. I deny you the right to define Christianity no matter what Christians think of their faith. To say that Christianity is the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible (censoring? No. But your personal opinion only).  And remember Jesus: “Moses told you... BUT I tell you...”

I don't remember this from Jesus. Please quote
I paraphrased.
But it is a key message of Christianity.
One example is John 5:24:
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

This is a message of HOPE. Only later it was said “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (out of the Church, you cannot be saved). Which is NOT said any more. Today no Christian (at least, no Catholic) thinks that Gandhi is burning in hell.
(so we've become DIFFERENT Christians from, say, those of 16th century? Maybe. No, surely. So what?)


Then you also have things like Mark 9:42-49:
42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

You are NOT saying “if someone induces a “little one” into committing a sin, you have the right not to be menaced of a harsher punishment than if you just had committed that sin” (because you just were “what God made you, that is, following your nature), right?
(what's a “little one”? A child? (seems so in Matt. 18, 5-6). Be careful, we're on thin ice here)

Are you referring to “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children....”? Inadequate translation of an Hebraic expression. And what about “Love thy neighbour as thyself” or “Love thine enemies”?
Yet you make no attempt to show what the correct translation is?

the correct translation is “if one doesn't love (God, His justice) MORE than...”. That is, if one doesn't put moral values above those of the family. Extreme, yes, typical also of Hindu or Buddhist asceticism. But, horrible?

if not, where do you think it comes from?
From people.
Where do you think the crap in the Bible came from?
Other people, more primitive and less moral people.

Just wondering why people in China didn't get to the same conclusions.
(but were ancient Jews so greater geniuses in ethical thinking? My idea is that a crucial factor is: they conceived these ideas AFTER their political and military defeat. So they decoupled ethics from any worldly value. Without “rejecting world and life” like so many Hindu and Buddhist ascetics)

where, then?
How about the ancient cultures of mesapatomia?
You know the ones which had polytheistic religions which Judaism sprung from?

MesOpOtAmia. Where this moral principle never gained such force as to put the supreme authority of a king in discussion.


There would be so many other points. But no point going on debating with someone who's so close-minded on this subject as FEs are about Earth's shape.

You claim to have given the correct definition of Christianity. You are entitled to your opinion. Which, though, as no Christian agrees with it today, matters more or less zero.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2024, 07:11:17 AM »
Is this enough words on Christianity on this thread?

Eratosthenes was BC in fact.

Ok, but at least now we know what JackBlack means by “Christian”. A person who believes in the divine nature of Jesus but also that slavery is moral. I never met such a person but, hey, it's logically possible, right?

Btw, IMO, no point in trying to persuade FEs to take measurements. Their mind is just not tuned to quantitative reasoning. To them, Eratosthenes & co. are the prophets of “scientism”, and narratives about them our holy scriptures. Show they are not historical and everything crumbles

Besides, many of them have invested too much, emotionally, on this flat-earth thing. They will go to any length to deny every evidence.

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2024, 09:13:17 AM »


Ok, but at least now we know what JackBlack means by “Christian”. A person who believes in the divine nature of Jesus but also that slavery is moral. I never met such a person but, hey, it's logically possible, right?



Argh, I have met such a person, in actual fact. A case of Schizotypal Personality Disorder I suspect, in all seriousness.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2024, 12:04:33 PM »
I thought that only flat-earthers, lacking an argument, could think that a simple “No, it isn't” is an adequate reply
Good thing that isn't all I said.

Your attitude is “all or nothing”. Step-by-step improvements, for you, don't matter.
No, it isn't.
It is a demonstration that Christianity is not the reason.

Those biblical commandments which make us cringe could well have been an improvement with respect to common usages of that time.
Which in no way makes them moral now.
Nor does it mean they in any way contribute to people rejecting those commands and rejecting things like slavery.

Reversing the burden of proof?
Yes. You make a bold claim, and then demand I prove you wrong.

See above. I deny you the right to define Christianity no matter what Christians think of their faith.
And I deny you that denial.

If you want to say Christianity is good, you need to look at the Bible. You need to have the commands in the Bible be good.

You don't get to use Christians who are rejecting parts of the Bible, being good in spite of Christianity, to pretend Christianity is good.

This is a message of HOPE.
You mean the message you want to focus on is hope.
The other key part of that message is that if you don't, then you will be judged.
It is a threat.

Today no Christian (at least, no Catholic) thinks that Gandhi is burning in hell.
Based on what?
People realising just how morally bankrupt Christianity is and trying to pretend it is better?

You are NOT saying
So you ignore the vast majority of the verses and just focus on a tiny bit?
Why not focus on that whole "thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 Everyone will be salted with fire."

The verses show a pattern, that there is a hell where you will burn and suffer unless you get out of that judgement by worshipping God.

That is not a good message.
That is not a message of love.

the correct translation is “if one doesn't love (God, His justice) MORE than...”.
Which is still not a message of love or morality.
It is of obediance.
That if you do not put blind obedience and worship of this clearly amoral being, who as a reminder decided to test Abraham by ordering him to kill his son, then you cannot be his disciple.

That has nothing to do with putting morality first.
Morality first would be hating God in comparison for all the evil it has done.

Just wondering why people in China didn't get to the same conclusions.
How do you know they wouldn't if you gave them more time.
Pretty much no culture exists in isolation, and how they interact with each other will influence how they develop.

My idea is that a crucial factor is: they conceived these ideas AFTER their political and military defeat. So they decoupled ethics from any worldly value.
So nothing to do with religion?

There would be so many other points. But no point going on debating with someone who's so close-minded on this subject as FEs are about Earth's shape.
I'm not the close minded one here.
I'm just the one accepting reality which is how morally bankrupt Christianity is.

On the other hand, you appear so close minded that you cannot allow anyone to object to Christianity.

You claim to have given the correct definition of Christianity. You are entitled to your opinion. Which, though, as no Christian agrees with it today, matters more or less zero.
Not merely an opinion.
An honest recognition of what Christianity is.
Yes, plenty of Christians today outright defy the Bible, to be decent human beings, or at least more decent than if they followed Christianity; living in a constant state of cognitive dissonance.
Those who don't do that, instead recognise Christianity for what it is and leave it.
But you still have some horrible Christians who do still cling to parts of the horrible bits, opposing homosexuality for example and still wanting homosexuals to be put to death.

Ok, but at least now we know what JackBlack means by “Christian”. A person who believes in the divine nature of Jesus but also that slavery is moral. I never met such a person but, hey, it's logically possible, right?
No, a person who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour and obeys God as commanded.

A non-Christian pretending to be a Christian instead says Jesus is their lord and saviour, while rejecting the command of "sin no more" and instead just doing whatever they want, only appealing to Christianity when it is convenient for them.

And if you think that is logically impossible, perhaps you should take a look at history, with the countless Christians who thought slavery is moral.
Your argument is entirely incoherent.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2024, 12:10:06 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2024, 12:07:17 PM »
What's so funny about Biggus Dickus?