The Four Corners of the Earth - and it's flat!?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't have to believe some 'stupid' flat-earther that the experiment was garbage. I know a lot of people put stock in the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson on these things. Here he is saying the same thing about it being inconclusive.

If you mean would I rely on measurement done by Eratosthenes 2,000-odd years ago, then no. But subsequent discoveries have shown that he had the right idea.

 

[SeventyOne]

If you mean would I rely on measurement done by Eratosthenes 2,000-odd years ago, then no. But subsequent discoveries have shown that he had the right idea.

Not as much as you might think.

 

[Tom 1]

He's talking the entire video. It's all him with the exception of the commentary words on the screen. So, yes, that's what he says.

Ok, gotcha. I’m not sure I’m getting the idea though - is the writer of the captions saying that as there wasn’t an actual third physical well rather than measured angles of shadow in a hypothetical well, the experiment doesn’t offer any proof?

 

[Tom 1]

Possibly. We'll know for sure one day.

The idea of a disk world with a dome over it seems to come from Sumerian mythology.

 

[Silmarien]

Wouldn't your second sentence indicate a reliance on Eratosthenes?

And that's kind of the point, they didn't know because the experiment was inconclusive at best. Shoddy is a better word.

Not really. It wasn't just Eratosthenes--it's been the standard view for the last 2000 years, and for more reasons than just that. (Aristotle looking at the stars, etc.) It wasn't proven until the first circumnavigation in the 16th century, but it was certainly a correct supposition.

 

[SeventyOne]

Ok, gotcha. I’m not sure I’m getting the idea though - is the writer of the captions saying that as there wasn’t an actual third physical well rather than measured angles of shadow in a hypothetical well, the experiment doesn’t offer any proof?

There was no third well. Only two. Or two sticks, whichever version of the story one wants to go with. Tyson adds the third well then makes assumptions on what it might have concluded had their been one.

But there were only two points of measurement, producing results that either results in a distant sun and curved surface or a close and smaller sun and a flat surface. The experiment proved neither conclusively. Therefore, the Greeks didn't 'know' about a round earth since 200 BC.

 

[lesliedellow]

And yet it remains a favorite go-to point, just like the stupid 'ships over the horizon' thing.

Oh, don’t tell me, you explain it away with that stupid vanishing point thing; which has everything to do with artists’ drawings, and absolutely nothing to do with optics.

 

[SeventyOne]

The idea of a disk world with a dome over it seems to come from Sumerian mythology.

And Hebrew, Norse, Aztec, Egyptian, Hindu, Mayan, etc...

 

[chevyontheriver]

Are there really that many flat earthers here?

There actually are.

 

[SeventyOne]

Oh, don’t tell me, you explain it away with that stupid vanishing point thing; which has everything to do with artists’ drawings, and absolutely nothing to do with optics.

You've never actually investigated that point, have you? Might want to give it a shot. Think you'll be surprised.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does a flat earth spin to bring on day and night....or how does that work?

Also, can a person actually fall off the edge, and if so, what, if anything, is preventing that? Or a better question, what's preventing photographs of that edge?

Not making fun, I'm just not that up on how things work in this area.

 

[SeventyOne]

Not really. It wasn't just Eratosthenes--it's been the standard view for the last 2000 years, and for more reasons than just that. (Aristotle looking at the stars, etc.) It wasn't proven until the first circumnavigation in the 16th century, but it was certainly a correct supposition.

Circumnavigation doesn't conclude anything. It's actually the exact same process on a flat model.

 

[Tom 1]

There was no third well. Only two. Or two sticks, whichever version of the story one wants to go with. Tyson adds the third well then makes assumptions on what it might have concluded had their been one.

But there were only two points of measurement, producing results that either results in a distant sun and curved surface or a close and smaller sun and a flat surface. The experiment proved neither conclusively. Therefore, the Greeks didn't 'know' about a round earth since 200 BC.

I don’t think that was the whole basis of it - although can’t the angle be calculated from the first 2 wells/sticks? - Phoenicians sailing around Africa made some surviving commentary on the position of the sun that suggests they may have concluded the earth is round earlier. The experiment in this vid isn’t the basis for knowledge about the shape of the earth, just an early record of someone considering the question. It seems evident that in the ancient Near East people assumed for centuries that the earth was flat, just as they assumed that the extent of the earth was much more limited than we now know it to be. Once sea trade became a major enterprise though navigating by the sun and stars would have led to questions about that belief.

 

[lesliedellow]

You've never actually investigated that point, have you? Might want to give it a shot. Think you'll be surprised.

Why does that supposed vanishing point manage to relocate itself to the far distance if I climb to the top of a hill? It ought to be a straightforward exercise in geometry, so explanation please.

 

[Tom 1]

And Hebrew, Norse, Aztec, Egyptian, Hindu, Mayan, etc...

Not sure they’re all quite the same - ? The point with the Sumerian precursor is that it is the most directly relevant to later Hebrew cosmogony.

 

[SeventyOne]

I don’t think that was the whole basis of it - although can’t the angle be calculated from the first 2 wells/sticks? - Phoenicians sailing around Africa made some surviving commentary on the position of the sun that suggests they may have concluded the earth is round earlier. The experiment in this vid isn’t the basis for knowledge about the shape of the earth, just an early record of someone considering the question. It seems evident that in the ancient Near East people assumed for centuries that the earth was flat, just as they assumed that the extent of the earth was much more limited than we now know it to be. Once sea trade became a major enterprise though navigating by the sun and stars would have led to questions about that belief.

Of course angles can be calculated in such a way, but it's the underlying assumption that's the issue. When a flat surface and close source of light and a curved surface and distant point of light gives the exact same result, then the angles themselves proves neither one to be the source. All one can say is that a curved surface can produce these results, therefore that's what did it.

 

[SeventyOne]

Why does that supposed vanishing point manage to relocate itself to the far distance if I climb to the top of a hill? It ought to be a straightforward exercise in geometry, so explanation please.

I'm not getting into these types of debates here. Just search for other recent flat earth threads and you'll find a lot of material by myself and others.

I absolutely refuse to go through all that again when 99% of the people seem to be too lazy to look anywhere outside of the current thread.

Let me tell you how these threads advance. First there's the group of people who just come in here to snipe and mock, then disappear, presumably because they feel superior to somebody for a moment.

Then the second group of people stick around a bit asking their 'gotcha' questions, ignore any rebuttals and will totally discount any external sources to help them because they want it "fresh" or not at all. Then they will find any chance to belittle anyone arguing against their point, usually with something that looks like, "See? They are all {fill in the blank}".

The third group of people will ignore all that put persist and inevitably come to the 'why would they lie' and expect us to understand the minds of perpetual liars. They will produce NASA video after NASA video with demonstrable fish-eye lens views and declare that as proof of the globe. The will then ignore the rebuttal videos of the same or greater altitudes showing zero-curve whatsoever.

Then when they are shown NASA videos demonstrating their habitual lies passing off footage with bubbles, scuba gear, harnesses, wired, bad video layering, hairspray, etc, suddenly they can't seem to see any 'proof' in the NASA videos any longer.

At the end of every thread leaves 3 or 4 individuals, a fourth group, who don't understand the flat earth concept at all, but just feel it's their sworn duty to be complete pains in the backside and troll to get their jollys off.

So, no, I've done this a few times now and will not be participating to that extent again.

If any of you really want to look into FE with any real curiosity, message me and I'll give a couple starter links. This is where I expect to start seeing the second group to chime in.

 

[SeventyOne]

Not sure they’re all quite the same - ? The point with the Sumerian precursor is that it is the most directly relevant to later Hebrew cosmogony.

Such a concept is derived from scripture itself. It's quite likely the earliest of people knew it was flat because they were closer to the original source of truth. However they got there, they got there.

 

[harko]

If all the ice melted and oceans evaporated! What shape would the world be?

 

[harko]

If all the ice melted and oceans evaporated! What shape would the world be?

Donut shaped?