[totallackey]

First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.

OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

This will show you the latitude and longitude of the Sun.

Thank you.

The flaw in your method is you are assuming a flat earth.
So you're calculating the black dotted line when actually you can see that the sun is far more distant in reality:



Obviously this is not to scale at all. If you imagine a far more distant sun in that diagram then you should be able to see that the error is orders of magnitude more than shown in that picture. That's why you're getting thousands of miles rather than millions.

There is no "flaw," as you put it.

Go ahead and assume a spherical earth and demonstrate via math (that is, post the calculations) and write the results here.

Otherwise, you have nothing.

You are the one utilizing the word "imagine." I think the use of such a word clearly indicates the instability of your thought process.

[totallackey]

Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)

And your prediction would be wrong.

Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.

Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.

The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.

Simply declaring my prediction incorrect with nothing to show for it does nothing. It's an empty claim.

My sentence is not an empty claim.

Your original offering is the empty claim.

Your second sentence is complete hyperbole. The Eratosthenes experiment is almost exactly what you have described doing, if you don't understand that I'm sorry.

No, what I propose has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes experiment.

You have zero clue about what you are writing.

That is patently obvious.

That said I'd love to see more of these done. OR, if you accept information provided by timeanddate.com as accurate, they provide the angle of elevation to the sun as well. Which could be easily used to figure out the height of the sun for multiple locations. I'd be more than happy to do the leg work there if you would accept the results.

You do not need the angle of elevation in order to perform the calculations presented here.

Until you can actually post different results (as you claimed without supporting evidence), then your original reply is to remain vacuous and bereft of substance.

[Curious Squirrel]

Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)

And your prediction would be wrong.

Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.

Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.

The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.

Simply declaring my prediction incorrect with nothing to show for it does nothing. It's an empty claim.

My sentence is not an empty claim.

Your original offering is the empty claim.

Your second sentence is complete hyperbole. The Eratosthenes experiment is almost exactly what you have described doing, if you don't understand that I'm sorry.

No, what I propose has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes experiment.

You have zero clue about what you are writing.

That is patently obvious.

That said I'd love to see more of these done. OR, if you accept information provided by timeanddate.com as accurate, they provide the angle of elevation to the sun as well. Which could be easily used to figure out the height of the sun for multiple locations. I'd be more than happy to do the leg work there if you would accept the results.

You do not need the angle of elevation in order to perform the calculations presented here.

Until you can actually post different results (as you claimed without supporting evidence), then your original reply is to remain vacuous and bereft of substance.

The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described. With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.

[MalteseFalconPunch]

That's easy. Buy the balloon and suit Baumgartner used. And make sure it has a way to descend without me having to jump.

[totallackey]

The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described.

No, you cannot.

Surveyors have been using the method I describe for thousands of years and there is nothing required about the angles of the top of the object(s) being measured.

You have no clue about what you are writing.

Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.

With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.

Yes, I do.

Surveyors do not use this method to determine the height of objects.

One does not need to know the angle of the hypotenuse.

One need only know the baseline distance from the object being observed to the vertex and the distance of the interceding pole to vertex.

This establishes a precise ratio of right triangles formed without any conjecture.

[stack]

Can you show the calculations you used so that I can do the same?

[Curious Squirrel]

The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described.

No, you cannot.

Surveyors have been using the method I describe for thousands of years and there is nothing required about the angles of the top of the object(s) being measured.

You have no clue about what you are writing.

Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.

I have never said the method you posted isn't a way to measure the height. My statement as been there are other methods for doing so. But since you suggested it, I've sent an email to a surveying company to inquire as to what methods are currently being used for measuring heights and similar.

With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.

Yes, I do.

Surveyors do not use this method to determine the height of objects.

One does not need to know the angle of the hypotenuse.

One need only know the baseline distance from the object being observed to the vertex and the distance of the interceding pole to vertex.

This establishes a precise ratio of right triangles formed without any conjecture.

Not even sure where to begin with this. Are you claiming that with triangle ABC, you can't figure out the height of side a by knowing angles A and C, and the length side b?



If you are not, please explain what you are actually trying to say. If you are, well....not sure there's any point in continuing this.

[AATW]

Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.

There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.

[stack]

Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.

There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.

It definitely assumes a flat plane.

I put my calculations into an Earth Curvature Calculator. The result was that the target object (Sun), calculated at a distance of 2581 miles away and a height of 3673 feet would be hidden by the curvature of the earth by 5,383,000 feet. Yet it is above me at about a 60 degree angle.

[Rickthebrick]

Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.[/quote]
Sure, that would be really easy.  Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).
[/quote]

Ok, say 1 billion $ so you have a really comfortable trip. This would prove either. A) you fly up and see the earth spinning and round. or B) You fly up and crash into a glass dome and fall to the earth like a flaming ball. or C) You actually crash through the dome where a heavenly camera crew awaits to interview you as the first person to escape the dome. or D) you crash through the dome and are murdered by aliens that want to set an example of you for any other human thinking about leaving their snowglobe.

[juner]

Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.[/quote]
Sure, that would be really easy.  Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).
[/quote]

Ok, say 1 billion $ so you have a really comfortable trip. This would prove either. A) you fly up and see the earth spinning and round. or B) You fly up and crash into a glass dome and fall to the earth like a flaming ball. or C) You actually crash through the dome where a heavenly camera crew awaits to interview you as the first person to escape the dome. or D) you crash through the dome and are murdered by aliens that want to set an example of you for any other human thinking about leaving their snowglobe.

Stop shitposting and derailing threads in the upper fora. 2nd warning.

[Evin]

i would take a boat the the edge. How much simpler can you get?

[Mysfit]

In order to provide proof of the shape of the earth...
I am not sure zetetic proof is possible without observation and I am unsure if trickery would be considered in a space-ship trip (CG screens instead of windows etc.).

I can think of nothing to prove the earth is any shape while relying on zetetic principles. That’s a good idea for a separate thread though. Thanks.

[RonJ]

All I would need to decide would be a plum bob and a scale to weigh myself.  If the earth were a disk then the gravitational field would be much different than it would be for a sphere.  The gravitational force is a vector.  That vector is pointed towards the center of gravity.  A sphere has it's center of gravity at the center of the sphere so the gravitational vector is always normal to the surface and would be the same anywhere.  Of course there are small variations on the earths surface because the density of the earth is not totally uniform, but the variations are relatively small.  If the world were a flat disk, then the center of gravity would be at the center of the disk.  To see the effect just take a plate and try to balance it on your finger.  The only place that would happen is in the center of the plate.  If the center of the earth disk happened to be in Omaha then the gravity force vector would be straight down at that point.  You would expect a plum bob to hang straight down at that point as well.  If you took the plum bob to near the edge, the force of gravity would fall off and the plum bob would hang at an angle to the surface of the earth an tend in the direction of Omaha.  Additionally, the force would be less because you are farther from the center of mass.  The gravitational force depends on the masses involved and the distance to the centers of both masses.  It wouldn't be all that bad to live on a flat disk earth.  If the doctor said that you needed to loose weight all you would have to do is move farther out toward the edge of the disk and you would weigh less.  Of course you would also tend to walk at an angle because the force of gravity would also pull you towards the center of mass.  Given enough cycles of evolution the human species could develop people with different length legs to compensate.  Unfortunately that would mean some people would only be able to walk in a circle clockwise and others counter clockwise.  I think that I would prefer the spherical world myself.  How about you?