Why can't the earth be flat???

[󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Seplory]

I'm wondering...

[allegedly]

Puggly the Grey eredeti hozzászólása:

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

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. :Dogeface:

lol you cannot even see a round shawdow using a skyscraper but this guy knew the distance of the sun thousands of years ago and saw a shadow using sticks and his buddy 500miles away
we should be seeing round shawdowes everywhere today :)
this greek shadow thing is a fabricated story, created in modern education system. For thousands of years nobody knew about this great discovery/story and then suddenly in modern times is pushed everywhere. The crazy thing is that people blindly believe it and say it, it's like a religious thing.

[Triple G]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

The distance doesn´t matter.

If You´re on a flat surface it would need to be an angle, which You can calculate beforehand if You watch at a distant object. But if the angle is different, You can calculate the curve of the surface You´re standing on - which is how he calculated how big the earth is, as it differed by 7.12 degrees. It´s geometry. You can´t be more scientific than using math or measurements.

Like if You measure the temperature of water, and the one million results all show 10°C - You can be sure that it´s 10°C. You can of course question it - but it wouldn´t serve much purpose. So we can assume that the water is 10°C as a fact.

[Echo NO Aim]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

Echo NO Aim eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

So much words zero understanding.

He already knew the shape of the earth before as I already stated. Proves you didn't read or understand my previous comment. His calculations also fit a spherical shape of the earth.

The distance to the light source matters less the more distance the light travels. This is basic knowledge in calculations. That's also a reason why the acceleration due to gravity on earth is g=9.81 m/s^2 and standardised in the majority of calculations, too even though the earth is not a true sphere and the acceleration is differend on the poles than on the equator. The scale matters.


Either way, you're hung up about what that random ancient greek calculated rather than that all the centuries throughout human history proved him and his calculations that were based off of previous knowledge and assumptions were right.

[allegedly]

Echo NO Aim eredeti hozzászólása:

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

So much words zero understanding.

He already knew the shape of the earth before as I already stated. Proves you didn't read or understand my previous comment. His calculations also fit a spherical shape of the earth.

The distance to the light source matters less the more distance the light travels. This is basic knowledge in calculations. That's also a reason why the gravity on earth is g=9.81 m/s^2 and standardised in the majority of calculations, too even though the earth is not a true sphere.

again, how did he know the distance the distance of earth to the sun to say a shadow in some place and a different shadow in some other place means proof of a sphere?
you said rays can be assumed paralleled if the sun is far enough. What distance is far enough? how did he know it?

[Echo NO Aim]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

Echo NO Aim eredeti hozzászólása:

So much words zero understanding.

He already knew the shape of the earth before as I already stated. Proves you didn't read or understand my previous comment. His calculations also fit a spherical shape of the earth.

The distance to the light source matters less the more distance the light travels. This is basic knowledge in calculations. That's also a reason why the gravity on earth is g=9.81 m/s^2 and standardised in the majority of calculations, too even though the earth is not a true sphere.

again, how did he know the distance the distance of earth to the sun to say a shadow in some place and a different shadow in some other place means proof of a sphere?
you said rays can be assumed paralleled if the sun is far enough. What distance is far enough? how did he know it?

Again can you read?

He did not prove the earth was a sphere. He knew it before and his calculations were the circumference of the spherical shape. Can you read?

[meowzers]

I don't believe flat-earthers are real. This is all a government psyop dating back to the 1960's, but actually has roots going further back to ancient Sumeria and possibly older than it. It's a pre-historic plot to troll people.

[allegedly]

Triple G eredeti hozzászólása:

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

The distance doesn´t matter.

now some of you say the distance of the sun to earth to compare a shadow doesn't even matter? lol
bros you don't even have a coherent story about the greek "proof" of the shape of the earth. Some of you say something and others something different

[Triple G]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

again, how did he know the distance the distance of earth to the sun to say a shadow in some place and a different shadow in some other place means proof of a sphere?
you said rays can be assumed paralleled if the sun is far enough. What distance is far enough? how did he know it?

The exact distance doesn´t matter - but the further away the better, if You don´t have modern tools to measure something.

Like You know a guy called Pythagoras, and his triangles?

[Echo NO Aim]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

Triple G eredeti hozzászólása:

The distance doesn´t matter.

now some of you say the distance of the sun to earth to compare a shadow doesn't even matter? lol
bros you don't even have a coherent story about the greek "proof" of the shape of the earth. Some of you say something and others something different

Point that out please. I love to see uneducated people shoot an own goal.

[allegedly]

Echo NO Aim eredeti hozzászólása:

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

again, how did he know the distance the distance of earth to the sun to say a shadow in some place and a different shadow in some other place means proof of a sphere?
you said rays can be assumed paralleled if the sun is far enough. What distance is far enough? how did he know it?

Again can you read?

He did not prove the earth was a sphere. He knew it before and his calculations were the circumference of the spherical shape. Can you read?

so he assumed the earth was a sphere to calculate the circumference? very scientific...

[Echo NO Aim]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

Echo NO Aim eredeti hozzászólása:

Again can you read?

He did not prove the earth was a sphere. He knew it before and his calculations were the circumference of the spherical shape. Can you read?

so he assumed the earth was a sphere to calculate the circumference? very scientific...

He assumed based off of previous observations. Observations are also part of scientific experiments. Maybe read about the history on how the ancient people came to the conclusion the earth had a spherical shape. How ignorant of you...

You make it look like he just assumed something and did some math, which isn't true. But I know this rethoric from people like you.

[allegedly]

Triple G eredeti hozzászólása:

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

again, how did he know the distance the distance of earth to the sun to say a shadow in some place and a different shadow in some other place means proof of a sphere?
you said rays can be assumed paralleled if the sun is far enough. What distance is far enough? how did he know it?

The exact distance doesn´t matter - but the further away the better, if You don´t have modern tools to measure something.

Like You know a guy called Pythagoras, and his triangles?

of course distance matters. Further away is required by globe proponents (while a closer distance is required by flat proponents).

[Echo NO Aim]

Oh yeah btw... the discovery of the planet Neptune was based off observations and calculations, too. They didn't know it was there until they observed irregularities of other celestial objects and calculated where Neptune should be.

[Råb!d]

If it was flat then we would find the edge.

Besides, cats would be knocking things off the edge all the time.

[Triple G]

allegedly eredeti hozzászólása:

of course distance matters. Further away is required by globe proponents (while a closer distance is required by flat proponents).

If the triangle doesn´t work if You measure the straight lines from two reference points to a distant object - You´re not on a flat surface....

And like said the difference would tell about the curve...