- This topic has 60 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi T8,
Here’s my first question:
Can the size and/or shape of the earth be determined by observing two shadows? YES or NO?
Haven’t researched this because I think you are heading in the direction of Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about that guy who worked out the circumference using two wells and measuring the shadows cast inside them. If so, I will let you ask another question as that is a wasted question. We both already know that two wells can point to either model. But Neil deGrasse Tyson’s point was a third one proves the globe.
Here’s that screenshot…
The “no reply at heaven net” link is busted too. Comes back to me as undeliverable. Anyway, I solved the problem. I just have to refresh when I log back on.
T8: We both already know that two wells can point to either model.
You’ve almost answered the question directly and honestly. Think it out… IF Eratosthenes’ experiment could “point to either model”, as you and Neil DeGrasse Tyson say, then…
Can the size and/or shape of the earth be determined by observing two shadows? YES or NO?
My best guess for 2 shadows is you first have to assume the world is round, then yes, you could probably work out the circumference. My thinking if Tyson is right, then there is a 50% chance of the world being round or flat on the outset at least. It is possible if Tyson is correct that Eratosthenes saw the result as pointing to the round earth and may have not realised it works on a Flat Earth too. I am only saying this if Tyson is right and I am making an assumption on top of that.
But Tyson mentions that a third well which I assume Eratosthenes didn’t use in his experiment actually proves a globe earth. If I heard what he said correctly in that video you posted way back.
Can the size and/or shape of the earth be determined by observing two shadows? YES or NO?
I don’t know Mike, but I assume this is the case with Eratosthenes observation and Tyson seems to back him up. At least I think that is what the video was saying at least.
But I do not know the answer. It seems like it could be true though, but I think you would have to know the true distance of the sun as well.
error 403 means the server ran out of CPU allocation. The data centre then throttles the connection when the CPU reaches a high limit. The permission message is a bit misleading.
Heaven Net has 2 problems that cause this.
- The server is not that great, but I paid 3 years of hosting and it will run out soon. So will choose a better server next time.
- The Heaven Net forum has nearly half a million posts and pages. That makes the database CPU intensive. I had to disable site search because one search of the site would crash the server. I handed search over to Google and embedded that in the site instead. So the huge database needs a lot of server resources, but I make little to no money off the site, so I cannot afford to give it a kickbutt server. That said, I have another server where I host other sites. I am going to move it there when I can free up some space. Hopefully it performs better.
T8: My best guess for 2 shadows is you first have to assume the world is round…
Mike: Can the size and/or shape of the earth be determined by observing two shadows? YES or NO?
T8: Tyson said the shape of the earth can be determined by three wells, or did I hear that wrong?
He did make that erroneous statement, but that is neither here nor there, since the Eratosthenes experiment used only two shadows (not two wells, but one well and one stick = two shadows). So please answer my question directly and honestly – with a YES or a NO. There is only one correct answer, T8. Please go on record as accepting that one correct answer.
Mike, it it is 2 questions.
Yes, I think the size can be set ermined. But I think you need to know the distance to the sun. If it has to be a yes or no answer, then it is, ‘I DON’T KNOW’.
As for the shape. Again I don’t know. But Tyson says 2 wells can point to either, but 3 wells to the globe.
So officially, my answer is ‘I don’t know’ to both questions. But I have provided what I think it is.
Not sure what these questions are trying to prove. You had me stumped as to your reasons in the other discussion.
My question is this.
What is the single piece of evidence you can provide for the existence of the island called Madagascar?
Hi Mike. To save you posting some questions, I add this video in that debunks a number of Flat Earth ideas. Just trying to save time and debate that which has not been debunked satisfactorily for you.
T8: Yes, I think the size can be determined. But I think you need to know the distance to the sun.
And is there any possible way Eratosthenes could have known the distance to the sun? Of course not.
In your attempt to avoid giving the direct, honest and correct answer to such a simple question, you have accidentally given it anyway. You have pointed out that one must first ASSUME the earth is curved, and ASSUME the distance to the sun. Assumptions are not determinations, as the latter means “ascertain or establish exactly”.
So the correct and honest answer is:
NO, it is impossible to know either the shape or the size of the earth using two shadows.
And the point of the question was to establish that the first claim almost every globe earther makes (“intelligent people have known the earth is round for over 2000 years”) is founded on a fallacy; and those people are only parroting crap they learned from other people, who were themselves parroting crap they learned from liars. Such is the path of indoctrination… tell the lie so often and for so long that it becomes a “truth” that people are unwilling to give up – because it’s easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled. Human pride makes a great tool for Satan to use against us.
So, for 5500 years (out of 6000), the people of earth have known that the earth is flat and stationary, with luminaries orbiting us overhead in a domed firmament…
Then came the “Copernican Revolution” – less than 500 years ago. My next question is:
In the last 475 years, how has mankind been able to determine (“ascertain or establish exactly” – as opposed to “assume” or “mathematically describe”) that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?
In other words, I just need the year and method by which we were finally able to prove – beyond any shadow of doubt – that we live on a spinning ball. As in, when did the Copernican mathematical model become verifiable fact, and how was that accomplished?
T8: What is the single piece of evidence you can provide for the existence of the island called Madagascar?
I can personally provide zero evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of the island called Madagascar.
That being said, I do not have staggering amounts of Biblical and observational evidence against the existence of Madagascar – as I do against the helical model of the universe – and therefore no rational reason to deny its existence.
In your attempt to avoid giving the direct, honest and correct answer to such a simple question, you have accidentally given it anyway.
I answered honestly, ‘I don’t know’ but went further to explain how I think it could be true, i.e., by knowing the distance to the sun.
You then accuse me of being dishonest? Not true Mike. It seems you suffer from the same problem Trinitarian suffer from. That is, starting from the view they are right, and all else is a lie and dishonest.
Funny seeing you suffer from the same thing you argued against for years earlier.
Can I have an honest answer to my question. I will make it easier for you though. It doesn’t have to be the best reason for believing in the existence of Madagascar, but a strong reason only. This should help speed up your response.
T8: I answered honestly, ‘I don’t know’… You then accuse me of being dishonest?
Well let’s see… Do you know the difference between “assume” and “determine”? YES or NO?
T8: It seems you suffer from the same problem Trinitarian suffer from. That is, starting from the view they are right, and all else is a lie and dishonest.
Funny seeing you suffer from the same thing you argued against for years earlier.
How do Trinitarians come to be Trinitarians?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
