[ConfusedFEer]

Hello everyone,

For starters, I believe what my eyes can see, and for all the evidences out here, I consider myself a"knower" more than a believer.

But here is my problem, I was in high school and we conducted an experiment with 2 different high schools separated from mine by a fair amount of 300km. It was rather simple and consisted in planting a pole of 2m long perpendicularly into the ground so that 1.5m was still outside and then we measured the length of its shadow at a particular time of the day.
The 2 other high schools did the same at the exact same time of the exact same day. The point of it all was to compare the lentgh obtained of these shadows. We used then some basic trigonometry to demonstrate the diameter of the Earth as a spheroid object. It was a reproduction of an experiment conducted by some bloke in the ancient greek society.

But then I objected because it i known the Earth can't be round, NASA is just lyng to us, but still they told me that even photos have been taken of the Earth and we see it as round blablabla and more bs.

Here is where I ran down of arguments and I really want to confront them and expose their lies but I don't find how.

Can someone, with his eyes open and more scientific knowledge than me, explain to me how I can prove all this was fake, and that I'm right ?

[rabinoz]

Hello everyone,

For starters, I believe what my eyes can see, and for all the evidences out here, I consider myself a"knower" more than a believer.

But here is my problem, I was in high school and we conducted an experiment with 2 different high schools separated from mine by a fair amount of 300km. It was rather simple and consisted in planting a pole of 2m long perpendicularly into the ground so that 1.5m was still outside and then we measured the length of its shadow at a particular time of the day.
The 2 other high schools did the same at the exact same time of the exact same day. The point of it all was to compare the lentgh obtained of these shadows. We used then some basic trigonometry to demonstrate the diameter of the Earth as a spheroid object. It was a reproduction of an experiment conducted by some bloke in the ancient greek society.

But then I objected because it i known the Earth can't be round, NASA is just lyng to us, but still they told me that even photos have been taken of the Earth and we see it as round blablabla and more bs.

Here is where I ran down of arguments and I really want to confront them and expose their lies but I don't find how.

Can someone, with his eyes open and more scientific knowledge than me, explain to me how I can prove all this was fake, and that I'm right ?

You "know the Earth can't be round" - what evidence of this?

But the explanation is simply that the experiment was based on the "assumption" that the earth is a sphere. On this basis the experiment does (as did Eratosthenes' experiment) give a rough measurement of the earth's circumference.

If the same experiment is done assuming the earth is flat you get a measure of the height of the sun.
The trouble you will find in this case is that you get a different answer for every different spacing of the two points.
For this 300 km spacing I think the sun height would come out to about 6400 km.
3000 km would put the sun height at about 5900 km and
5000 km would put the sun height at about 5000 km.

Maybe something is amiss with this "flat earth" assumption?

[ConfusedFEer]

You "know the Earth can't be round" - what evidence of this?

But the explanation is simply that the experiment was based on the "assumption" that the earth is a sphere. On this basis the experiment does (as did Eratosthenes' experiment) give a rough measurement of the earth's circumference.

If the same experiment is done assuming the earth is flat you get a measure of the height of the sun.
The trouble you will find in this case is that you get a different answer for every different spacing of the two points.
For this 300 km spacing I think the sun height would come out to about 6400 km.
3000 km would put the sun height at about 5900 km and
5000 km would put the sun height at about 5000 km.

Maybe something is amiss with this "flat earth" assumption?
[/quote]

Not helping here. My eyes can see, just expose their lie please.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Not helping here. My eyes can see, just expose their lie please.

Your eyes can see what? Have you considered the possibility that they aren't lying, and that the earth really isn't flat?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Aren't these huckster fake accounts getting old by now?

[rabinoz]

Hello everyone,

But here is my problem, I was in high school and we conducted an experiment with 2 different high schools separated from mine by a fair amount of 300km. It was rather simple and consisted in planting a pole of 2m long perpendicularly into the ground so that 1.5m was still outside and then we measured the length of its shadow at a particular time of the day.
The 2 other high schools did the same at the exact same time of the exact same day. The point of it all was to compare the lentgh obtained of these shadows. We used then some basic trigonometry to demonstrate the diameter of the Earth as a spheroid object. It was a reproduction of an experiment conducted by some bloke in the ancient greek society.

I should have said this in my first post on this topic. The statement in the topic "Experiment showed me Earth is round, please expose the lie" is simply wrong!

The experiment does not pretend to prove that the Earth is round. What the experiment does is measure (roughly) the circumference of the earth "assuming that it is a Globe!".

That is a different thing altogether. Likewise Eratosthenes never set out to prove the earth a globe, though that is often claimed.

By the way. In my previous post the figures I gave for the height of the sun are probably not accurate because I would have needed much more data on the locations and actual angles measures. The idea they were intended to provide is valid, but the value would be rather rough.

[İntikam]

I want to help you so much because i'm one of a "knower" like you. but my English is not so good so i don't understand the problem exactly.

I'm a knower but i don't know english well.

Sure i'm trying every way to understand and solve the problem.

[İntikam]

Hello everyone,

For starters, I believe what my eyes can see, and for all the evidences out here, I consider myself a"knower" more than a believer.

But here is my problem, I was in high school and we conducted an experiment with 2 different high schools separated from mine by a fair amount of 300km. It was rather simple and consisted in planting a pole of 2m long perpendicularly into the ground so that 1.5m was still outside and then we measured the length of its shadow at a particular time of the day.
The 2 other high schools did the same at the exact same time of the exact same day. The point of it all was to compare the lentgh obtained of these shadows. We used then some basic trigonometry to demonstrate the diameter of the Earth as a spheroid object. It was a reproduction of an experiment conducted by some bloke in the ancient greek society.

But then I objected because it i known the Earth can't be round, NASA is just lyng to us, but still they told me that even photos have been taken of the Earth and we see it as round blablabla and more bs.

Here is where I ran down of arguments and I really want to confront them and expose their lies but I don't find how.

Can someone, with his eyes open and more scientific knowledge than me, explain to me how I can prove all this was fake, and that I'm right ?

I don't understand how experiment proves the earth is a sphere but some experiments have two meaning. It needed to chech is it match with flat earth or not.

We have some calculating about sun positions that proves it is about 5.000 kms far. But it changes time by time because the sun is moving. sometimes 3.000 miles, sometimes 10.000 miles.

You can find out them with a google searhing or you can calculate it yourself on by using the site www.timeanddate.com/sun/

You can calculate the position of the sun with using the it's angels at different time and different places.

For example :

city A, sun is 20 degrees (at a time).
city B sun is 22 degrees (at same time).
Find out the distance of city A to city B from internet.

Then you can calculate the position of the sun. We calculated it about 5.000 miles. This debunk some of their theories. You are a knower so you must calculate it yourself to learn how the sun is far away from us.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Maybe the experiment indicates that the earth is round because the earth is round. But that's just me.

[thatsnice]

city A, sun is 20 degrees (at a time).
city B sun is 22 degrees (at same time).
Find out the distance of city A to city B from internet.

Then you can calculate the position of the sun. We calculated it about 5.000 miles. This debunk some of their theories. You are a knower so you must calculate it yourself to learn how the sun is far away from us.

Well, no you're not "debunking" anything about a round earth with that one. You seem to not understand that those calculations were taken with the assumption that the earth was flat.

Imagine this, you are an observer of no height. You're on a line that is (for sake of math) pi miles long, you're in the middle of it. Above you, there's a light, so looking straight up it's in your line of sight. That's 90 degrees. Now you move a quarter mile in either direction, and you have to look at a 45 degree angle to see the light. You can calculate and find that the light is .25 miles away in this case.  Remember the angles.

Now let's imagine that you're on a circle pi miles in circumference (.5 miles in radius). The light is above you again, but we don't know how far the light is from you this time. You can look straight up at it, and this is 90 degrees again. You then move a quarter mile either way again (28.65 degrees around the circle) and we look up at 45 degrees again. With a little trigonometry, we can find that the light is .737 miles away. As we increase the circumference of the circle(and move farther away so that the sun is still 45 degrees in the sky), the sun is calculated to be farther and farther away. Continue to grow the circle until you reach the scale of the earth.

In short, "this debunk some of their theories" is not a true statement. The calculations you did depend on whether you are measuring from a globe or a flat surface.

As for the OP, it doesn't definitively prove either theory, sadly. It's just as useful as "calculating the distance of the sun" without using a single earth model. However, it does strengthen RET, as the figures for the experiment work with figures previous calculated pertaining to the earth, including radius and distance to the sun. Meanwhile the FE sun probably doesn't work with your 300km distance and shadows unless it's at a different height than previously stated.

Hope this helps to some degree!

[totallackey]

It does not show the earth is round or a sphere.

The suns rays need to hit the supposed globe in a perpendicular fashion. They do not according to RE.

[thatsnice]

It does not show the earth is round or a sphere.

The suns rays need to hit the supposed globe in a perpendicular fashion. They do not according to RE.

What does this even mean? Light rays do not need to hit the surface of a sphere in a perpendicular fashion, they just have to hit the surface with an angle less than tangent to the surface of the sphere, thereby illuminating slightly less than 50% of the globe. How did what you said make any sense, no offense?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

But then I objected because it i known the Earth can't be round, NASA is just lyng to us

I don't follow your logic, NASA lies hence the Earth is flat even though the experiment that was invented millenniums ago which was supposedly proven the Earth to be spherical was a success?

[totallackey]

It does not show the earth is round or a sphere.

The suns rays need to hit the supposed globe in a perpendicular fashion. They do not according to RE.

What does this even mean? Light rays do not need to hit the surface of a sphere in a perpendicular fashion, they just have to hit the surface with an angle less than tangent to the surface of the sphere, thereby illuminating slightly less than 50% of the globe. How did what you said make any sense, no offense?

Eratosthenes performed his experiment under the impression sunshine IS perpendicular.

One, it isn't. The atmosphere refracts the light.

Two, I can make math demonstrate anything.

[TotesNotReptilian]

It does not show the earth is round or a sphere.

That is sort of true.

If the earth is round, this experiment will determine it's radius.
If the earth is flat, this experiment will determine the height of the sun.

If you end up calculating a different height of the sun at each location at the same time, this shows a problem with the flat earth model. 

The suns rays need to hit the supposed globe in a perpendicular fashion.

No they don't.

Eratosthenes performed his experiment under the impression sunshine IS perpendicular.

No, he performed his experiment under the impression that sunshine was perpendicular at a particular location during the summer solstice, when the sun is directly overhead. He did this just to simplify the math. He did not assume perpendicular sunshine at the other location he took measurements at.

[thatsnice]

Eratosthenes performed his experiment under the impression sunshine IS perpendicular.

One, it isn't. The atmosphere refracts the light.

Two, I can make math demonstrate anything.

Eratosthenes understood that the sun was overhead at one of his locations, not both. That isn't even related to the actual topic at hand considering whether or not be understood it as perpendicular as that would only produce incorrect results for the radius and not a problem with the shape of the earth itself. The experiment doesn't prove FE or RE as the results are based on what you assume.

Also,

One, the light would refract closer to the normal anyway even if it wasn't a negligible amount to begin with.

Two, an objectively false statement.

[Setec Astronomy]

an experiment with 2 different high schools separated from mine by a fair amount of 300km. It was rather simple and consisted in planting a pole of 2m long perpendicularly into the ground so that 1.5m was still outside and then we measured the length of its shadow at a particular time of the day.

Sit at a table that has a light above it on the ceiling.

Measure the shadows of two identical wine glasses placed on the table 3 feet apart.

The shadows will be different lengths. Does this indicate your table is curved?

[Rounder]

Sit at a table that has a light above it on the ceiling.
Measure the shadows of two identical wine glasses placed on the table 3 feet apart.
The shadows will be different lengths. Does this indicate your table is curved?

Let's extend this analogy to match the OP's classroom experiment by adding a third wine glass, not equidistant from each other or the light.  Measure all three shadows.  Do the math using shadows 1 and 2, do it again for shadows 2 and 3, then again for shadows 3 and 1.  If the table is flat, you will get the same bulb height.  This is a concept which could have been illustrated by the OP's teacher but likely was not, because the point of the exercise was round earth radius calculating.  The OP's teacher started from a round earth assumption and did the math for a curved surface.  They should have done the math a second time, but this time doing it for a flat surface.  This would have given them three different sun heights, which is clearly a false result, thus demonstrating that the assumption of a flat surface was incorrect.