Why can't the earth be flat???

[󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Seplory]

I'm wondering...

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

people who want to prove the shape of the earth or want to prove if earth is moving should observe earth, measure earth or do experiments with earth.

"In the third century BCE , Eratosthenes, a Greek librarian in Alexandria , Egypt , determined the earth's circumference to be 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers (25,000 to 28,500 miles) by comparing the Sun's relative position at two different locations on the earth's surface."

let's say that was a real experiment and not a made up story
to do that he would need to know the size of the sun and the distance of earth to the sun, how did he know that? or he just assumed sun distance and size values to fit what he was doing?
on a flat earth the result of doing that experiment would be the same result, just by having the sun at a shorter distance in the equation.

[Triple G]

Publicado originalmente por Xero_Daxter:

Why can’t the Sun be flat? Why can’t the moon be flat? Why can’t the other planets be flat? Why can’t the stars be flat? Why can’t anything be flat?

Some jokes are flat, even if nobody ever proved their shape or form, though...

Some tires are flat, even if they are clearly round.

Some people live in a flat.

...and one day we´re all be flattened...

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

let's say that was a real experiment and not a made up story
to do that he would need to know the size of the sun and the distance of earth to the sun, how did he know that? or he just assumed sun distance and size values to fit what he was doing?
on a flat earth the result of doing that experiment would be the same result, just by having the sun at a shorter distance in the equation.

I just said that some people 5k years ago were scientifically more advanced than some people nowadays.

[Pocahawtness]

I think a more sensible question would be "why would tens of thousands of scientists lie about something so stupid?".

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

let's say that was a real experiment and not a made up story
to do that he would need to know the size of the sun and the distance of earth to the sun, how did he know that? or he just assumed sun distance and size values to fit what he was doing?
on a flat earth the result of doing that experiment would be the same result, just by having the sun at a shorter distance in the equation.

I just said that some people 5k years ago were scientifically more advanced than some people nowadays.

if you were open minded by now you would at least question the validity of the eratosthenes story/experiment because he didn't know the distance to the sun. But sadly the shape of earth is like a modern religion for most people, so nothing about the official narrative can be questioned.

[Pieshaman]

earth can be flattened. Just need something big enough to do it.

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Pocahawtness:

I think a more sensible question would be "why would tens of thousands of scientists lie about something so stupid?".

you don't need tens of thousands, you only need a few. But your question still stands.
Why would those in power lie about telling us where we are?
I guess that's a different topic but there could many reason why those in power would lie to people about where we are.

[Triple G]

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

if you were open minded by now you would at least question the validity of the eratosthenes story/experiment because he didn't know the distance to the sun. But sadly the shape of earth is like a modern religion for most people, so nothing about the official narrative can be questioned.

Erm - the shape of the earth has nothing to do with being open minded, except it was about some fantasies. It´s proven a lot of times, in various ways.

Rather try to explain how the earth could be flat to begin with. But it seems that some people take it as a religion that it would be flat. It can be excluded that the earth is flat, or a triangle, or whatever else shape...

Also: what would change if the world would be flat or a sphere? For our ideas how life "should" be? Like the point in which i would agree is that people should rather focus on earth to solve the problems here first, before thinking about solving problems with space and time...

[Echo NO Aim]

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

Because celestial objects are subject to the law of physics. And as long as the theories about the physics we use aren't disproven, they will apply to our understanding.

so someone looks up to the sky and concludes he has proven the shape of what he's standing on, without observing what he's standing on. An objective person can notice this is not very scientific or proof.
people who want to prove the shape of the earth or want to prove if earth is moving should observe earth, measure earth or do experiments with earth.

Just.... no....

The ancient greeks (Erastothenes, B.C.) already proved the shape of the earth by observing shadows in different places.

Eratosthenes already calculated or better estimated earth's circumference with a margin error of less than 1%. by simply observing.

Also B.C people already observed that different masses behave differently in the same medium.
Another more known example is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which in tl;dr states that every particle attracts each other.

Henry Cavendish was the first one to measure the force of gravity between masses (Cavendish experiment, tl;dr 2 balls of different masses attracting each other).

Furthermore we know that gravitiy pulls equally towards the center of a mass. It's called hydrostatic equilibrium. That's why celestial bodies tend to have a round or spherical shape.

Unless someone disproves these observations and formulars, all above is true and applies to our understanding. It's not a matter of making up stuff and wait for it to be disproven but having a hypothesis, collect data, examine the results and draw your conclusions from that. People are free to disprove the above with their own collected data. Yet, I have never seen concrete evidence that disproves the observations and calculations I mentioned above.


If you are serious about your argument I'm really worried about the education some folks on this forum got through.

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

if you were open minded by now you would at least question the validity of the eratosthenes story/experiment because he didn't know the distance to the sun. But sadly the shape of earth is like a modern religion for most people, so nothing about the official narrative can be questioned.

Erm - the shape of the earth has nothing to do with being open minded, except it was about some fantasies. It´s proven a lot of times, in various ways.

Rather try to explain how the earth could be flat to begin with. But it seems that some people take it as a religion that it would be flat. It can be excluded that the earth is flat, or a triangle, or whatever else shape...

Also: what would change if the world would be flat or a sphere? For our ideas how life "should" be? Like the point in which i would agree is that people should rather focus on earth to solve the problems here first, before thinking about solving problems with space and time...

I'm not trying to prove the shape of the earth flat or globe, I can't, we can't. I just explained how the eratosthenes experiment you mentioned is invalid. That doesn't mean earth is flat or globe, it just means for some reason people are told to believe a story that makes no sense because he couldn't have possibly known the distance of earth to the sun, so it's probably a modern fabricated story to make people believe humans have "known" the shape of earth for thousands and thousands of years.

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

so someone looks up to the sky and concludes he has proven the shape of what he's standing on, without observing what he's standing on. An objective person can notice this is not very scientific or proof.
people who want to prove the shape of the earth or want to prove if earth is moving should observe earth, measure earth or do experiments with earth.

The ancient greeks (Erastothenes, B.C.) already proved the shape of the earth by observing shadows in different places.

....

If you are serious about your argument I'm really worried about the education some folks on this forum got through.

he didn't know the distance of the sun, he couldn't have proved the shape of the earth. It's an invalid experiment because he would have to assume the distance of the light source, using the value he needs.
it's like having two objects on a table, put a light source on top of one and the other will have different longer shadow. That doesn't mean the table is a sphere. that's why the distance of the light source matters. I hope this small example helps illustrate why distance matters.

you calling uneducated those who question or expose the flaws main stream story is normal behavior, you've to protect your stories, your beliefs, like a religion. It always comes to that in any subject, not just this one. Shaming doesn't work on me.

[Puggly the Grey]

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

The ancient greeks (Erastothenes, B.C.) already proved the shape of the earth by observing shadows in different places.

....

If you are serious about your argument I'm really worried about the education some folks on this forum got through.

he didn't know the distance of the sun, he couldn't have proved the shape of the earth. It's an invalid experiment because he would have to assume the distance of the light source, using the value he needs.
it's like having two objects on a table, put a light source on top of one and the other will have different longer shadow. That doesn't mean the table is a sphere. that's why the distance of the light source matters. I hope this small example helps illustrate why distance matters.

you calling uneducated those who question or expose the flaws main stream story is normal behavior, you've to protect your stories, your beliefs, like a religion. It always comes to that in any subject, not just this one. Shaming doesn't work on me.

Wow…chu know, it’s not often dat I encounter a peep dat makes me look smart by comparison, but here we are.

[Echo NO Aim]

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

The ancient greeks (Erastothenes, B.C.) already proved the shape of the earth by observing shadows in different places.

....

If you are serious about your argument I'm really worried about the education some folks on this forum got through.

he didn't know the distance of the sun, he couldn't have proved the shape of the earth. It's an invalid experiment because he would have to assume the distance of the light source, using the value he needs.
it's like having two objects on a table, put a light source on top of one and the other will have different longer shadow. That doesn't mean the table is a sphere. that's why the distance of the light source matters. I hope this small example helps illustrate why distance matters.

you calling uneducated those who question or expose the flaws main stream story is normal behavior, you've to protect your stories, your beliefs, like a religion. It always comes to that in any subject, not just this one. Shaming doesn't work on me.

That's the problem with people like you.

He concluded that the moon was further away from the sun. Rays on a huge scale can be assumed to be parallel if they travel far enough. This assumption is also used in daily physical calculations and the methods are valid. Using an analogy with two objects on a table. Even YOU should know the further you go away with the light source the more the shadows change. And no, your calculations are wrong since he would get a different result if the earth was flat. On top of that he already knew the earth had a spherical shape.

He also used the summer solstice as reference for his calculations.

I call people uneducated when they question or try to expose flaws that can be disproven by either thinking while having a base understanding or being read up. You are one of them.

And the fact that this dude had a very close estimate to today's calculations with just simple utilities just proves him right on that no matter how much mental gymnastics you're trying to pull here.

[allegedly]

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

he didn't know the distance of the sun, he couldn't have proved the shape of the earth. It's an invalid experiment because he would have to assume the distance of the light source, using the value he needs.
it's like having two objects on a table, put a light source on top of one and the other will have different longer shadow. That doesn't mean the table is a sphere. that's why the distance of the light source matters. I hope this small example helps illustrate why distance matters.

you calling uneducated those who question or expose the flaws main stream story is normal behavior, you've to protect your stories, your beliefs, like a religion. It always comes to that in any subject, not just this one. Shaming doesn't work on me.

That's the problem with people like you.

He concluded that the moon was further away from the sun. Rays on a huge scale can be assumed to be parallel if they travel far enough. This assumption is also used in daily physical calculations and the methods are valid. Using an analogy with two objects on a table. Even YOU should know the further you go away with the light source the more the shadows change. And no, your calculations are wrong since he would get a different result if the earth was flat. On top of that he already knew the earth had a spherical shape.

He also used the summer solstice as reference for his calculations.

I call people uneducated when they question or try to expose flaws that can be disproven by either thinking while having a base understanding or being read up. You are one of them.

And the fact that this dude had a very close estimate to today's calculations with just simple utilities just proves him right on that no matter how much mental gymnastics you're trying to pull here.

so much word and so many comments, yet you still cannot say how he knew the distance of earth to the sun...
He didn't know the distance, so he couldn't have known the shape of the earth by looking at a shadow of two different objects.
if you have to assume values to get the result you want, you're not being scientific.
And yes, I said the example of the table so we all can easily see why the distance to the light source matters. So you assume the value you need(a value further away enough) and now you get the result you want, not science or proof at all.

[Puggly the Grey]

Publicado originalmente por allegedly:

Publicado originalmente por Echo NO Aim:

That's the problem with people like you.

He concluded that the moon was further away from the sun. Rays on a huge scale can be assumed to be parallel if they travel far enough. This assumption is also used in daily physical calculations and the methods are valid. Using an analogy with two objects on a table. Even YOU should know the further you go away with the light source the more the shadows change. And no, your calculations are wrong since he would get a different result if the earth was flat. On top of that he already knew the earth had a spherical shape.

He also used the summer solstice as reference for his calculations.

I call people uneducated when they question or try to expose flaws that can be disproven by either thinking while having a base understanding or being read up. You are one of them.

And the fact that this dude had a very close estimate to today's calculations with just simple utilities just proves him right on that no matter how much mental gymnastics you're trying to pull here.

so much word and so many comments, yet you still cannot say how he knew the distance of earth to the sun...
He didn't know the distance, so he couldn't have known the shape of the earth by looking at a shadow of two different objects.
if you have to assume values to get the result you want, you're not being scientific.
And yes, I said the example of the table so we all can easily see why the distance to the light source matters. So you assume the value you need(a value further away enough) and now you get the result you want, not science or proof at all.

Dat Greek peep didn’t need to know le distance, chu silly goose, only a sphere casts a round shadow.

[EliteEndermanzz]

It would crumple back up