http://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter
Erathostenes on Diameter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.
Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?
But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable.You've got a real hatred for the Ancient Greeks that I just don't understand. Geometry works, Tom, get over it! (You probably can't stand the fact that they disagree with your patron saint Rowbotham.)
For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations?He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.
The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.This is rich, coming from a guy who continues to send us to a book which claims that islands and continents float on a world wide sea. And the sea hovers on a layer of steam sustained by seawater boiling on contact with a literally Biblical lake of fire! "Questionable" hardly begins to cover it!
He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.
What are you talking about? He wasn't trying to calibrate time. He was using local zenith as the timekeeping mark. Simultaneous measurement was neither claimed nor required. On the day when the zenith sun cast no shadow in Syene, the zenith sun cast a shadow of 7.2° in Alexandria.He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.
Using a clock to test its own accuracy? How does that work?
The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.The key problem that you keep ignoring is that conducting the experiment from different locations on a flat earth will not give consistent results. On the other hand, consistent results are possible when performing the experiment using different locations on a sphere. I know this to be true because I performed this same experiment on a small globe in a 9th grade earth science lab experiment and came up with the same results as the other students did on their small globes.
And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?
The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.
But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable. For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations? The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.
And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?
The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.
But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable. For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations? The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.
Erathostenes on Diameter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.
| Latitude | Ground Distance | Sun Elev | Sun Height |
30.0° | 2,071 miles | 60.0° | 3,587 miles |
45.0° | 3,107 miles | 45.0° | 3,107 miles |
60.0° | 4,142 miles | 30.0° | 2,392 miles |
75.0° | 5,178 miles | 15.0° | 1,387 miles |
How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?
How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox? It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact. You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.
Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.
How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox? It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact. You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.
Quote from: TotesNotReptilianTom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.
How would he know that the calculations meet reality?
Umm... No.Quote from: TotesNotReptilianTom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.
How would he know that the calculations meet reality?How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox? It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact. You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.
We never collected those values, they are used in determining the distance to the sun under RET.
Due to low quality RE science, they may very well be wrong. The values are only used for the purpose of showing that the sun's height can be recalculated under the assumption of a Flat Earth.Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.
Quote from: TotesNotReptilianTom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.
How would he know that the calculations meet reality?
You give him data that you know is correct. He confirms that the data agrees with google maps. He does calculations. If the calculations result in different heights of the sun, then the model is probably wrong.
Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;
A lab experiment that I performed in 9th grade earth science class.Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.
Which of your RET studies shows such results?
A lab experiment that I performed in 9th grade earth science class.Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.
Which of your RET studies shows such results?
These things make Erathostenes' estimates and the FE map look a bit out of kilter with reality don't you think?
I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are constantly told to look in "the Wiki" and there we find:Quote from: the WikiLatitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
This would make the North Pole to Equator on FE 90 x 69.5 miles = 6,255 miles.
Napolean, however, got in on the act and defined the metre as (Distance from North Pole to Equator)/10,000,000.,
making the North Pole to Equator distance 10,000 km, or 6,214 miles.
So "the Wiki" is not far off, but it would be better if it had one degree per 69.0 miles instead of "one degree per 69.5 miles.
This is also closer the figure for the diameter given in "the Wiki".Quote from: the WikiThe Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;
Use kilometers like the rest of the world.I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are constantly told to look in "the Wiki" and there we find:Quote from: the WikiLatitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
This would make the North Pole to Equator on FE 90 x 69.5 miles = 6,255 miles.
Napolean, however, got in on the act and defined the metre as (Distance from North Pole to Equator)/10,000,000.,
making the North Pole to Equator distance 10,000 km, or 6,214 miles.
So "the Wiki" is not far off, but it would be better if it had one degree per 69.0 miles instead of "one degree per 69.5 miles.
This is also closer the figure for the diameter given in "the Wiki".Quote from: the WikiThe Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;
The figures should align. I believe that some of those pages are talking about Statute Miles, which are different than regular miles. I will review the Wiki when I have time to make sure everything makes sense.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are constantly told to look in "the Wiki" and there we find:Quote from: the WikiLatitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
This would make the North Pole to Equator on FE 90 x 69.5 miles = 6,255 miles.
Napolean, however, got in on the act and defined the metre as (Distance from North Pole to Equator)/10,000,000.,
making the North Pole to Equator distance 10,000 km, or 6,214 miles.
So "the Wiki" is not far off, but it would be better if it had one degree per 69.0 miles instead of "one degree per 69.5 miles.
This is also closer the figure for the diameter given in "the Wiki".Quote from: the WikiThe Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;
The figures should align. I believe that some of those pages are talking about Statute Miles, which are different than regular miles. I will review the Wiki when I have time to make sure everything makes sense.
Statute miles are regular miles. It's nautical miles that are different.I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are constantly told to look in "the Wiki" and there we find:Quote from: the WikiLatitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
This would make the North Pole to Equator on FE 90 x 69.5 miles = 6,255 miles.
Napolean, however, got in on the act and defined the metre as (Distance from North Pole to Equator)/10,000,000.,
making the North Pole to Equator distance 10,000 km, or 6,214 miles.
So "the Wiki" is not far off, but it would be better if it had one degree per 69.0 miles instead of "one degree per 69.5 miles.
This is also closer the figure for the diameter given in "the Wiki".Quote from: the WikiThe Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;
The figures should align. I believe that some of those pages are talking about Statute Miles, which are different than regular miles. I will review the Wiki when I have time to make sure everything makes sense.