Is the Earth Flat?

[trophy33]

Science was suppressed in Christian Europe for about a millennium.

Do you have some credible source for that and for Christianity being the cause?

 

[trophy33]

in my scientific training, or in my subsequent professional work.

BTW, what scientific training do you have? Or in what area? Just curious, because I see your posts frequently in threads about science topics.

 

[sjastro]

Actually there would be a difference, just like someone standing under a street lamp would cast no shadow while a person a few feet away would cast a shadow. Remember that flat earthers believe (without any basis) that the sun and moon are objects relatively close to the earth's surface. They won't provide any means of measuring the distance even though they could easily collaborate with their co-believers to triangulate the distance by observing the angle of the sun from their respective locations at an agreed time.
What is required as proof of the globe is to measure the angle to the sun from multiple different locations along the same longitude at the same time of day. There is already an international experiment organized by Dr Angelos Lazoudis in Greece called the Eratosthenes Experiment which schools all over the world take part in every year. The results cannot be made to fit on a flat plane.

The problem with your example the distance from the street lamp to the person is only a few metres and the street lamp will have a large parallax or angle subtended even when the person moves only a short distance.
By comparison the sun's parallax is the angle subtended by the earth's equatorial radius (6780 km) at the centre of the sun at the mean distance between the earth and the sun (i.e. at 1 astronomical unit or roughly 150 million kilometres).
It has the value of around 8.8 arcseconds which is quite a small angle.

The distance between Syene and Alexandria was around 800 km or 12.0% of the earth's equatorial radius and the resultant angular displacement of the sun is considerably smaller at this distance making it unlikely there would be any noticeable difference in the shadows.

​

 

[Lost4words]

Flat earth believers act the same as an Ostrich with his head buried in the sand!

 

[prodromos]

The problem with your example the distance from the street lamp to the person is only a few metres and the street lamp will have a large parallax or angle subtended even when the person moves only a short distance.
By comparison the sun's parallax is the angle subtended by the earth's equatorial radius at the centre of the sun at the mean distance between the earth and the sun (i.e. at 1 astronomical unit or roughly 150 million kilometres).
It has the value of around 8.8 arcseconds which is quite a small angle.

The distance between Syene and Alexandria was around 800 km or 0.0005% of the earth's equatorial radius and the resultant angular displacement of the sun is insignificantly small making it highly unlikely there would any noticeable difference in the shadows.

Yes, that is because the sun is so far distant. Flat earthers argue that the not insignificantly small difference in angle is because the sun is much, much closer. That is why two locations on the same longitude are insufficient to prove the earth is a globe. Eratosthenes already knew the earth was a globe and used the difference in the angle of the two location's shadows to calculate its size.

If, as the flat earthers claim, the sun is close to the earth and the earth is flat, then the angle of shadows at different locations on the same longitude would have a linear relationship to the distance from the location where the sun is directly overhead. The truth of the matter is that the relationship is not linear, but perfectly matches that of a distant sun and a globe earth.

If the earth was flat, then based on Eratosthenes' observations (angle of 7.2°, distance of 800km between Alexandria and Syene) then the height of the sun above Syene would be 800/Tan(7.2) = 6332.65km. The problem flat earthers have with this is that when observations are made at latitudes both closer to the equator and further away, the calculations yield greatly different heights, whereas if the earth was flat then they should get the same height calculated regardless of where they make their observations. Ergo, the earth is not flat. When the observed angles are corrected for a globe, they all end up pretty much parallel.

There was a nice little animation someone did where they displayed vectors from various locations around the world showing the direction and angle of their respective view of a lunar eclipse. If the earth was flat then they all should have intersected at some point above the earth's surface, since they were all looking at the same object at the same time. The problem was that none of them intersected but all pointed in different directions. The flat earth model with all the different vectors was then wrapped around a globe, after which all the vectors ended up almost parallel, all pointing in the same direction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

BTW, what scientific training do you have? Or in what area? Just curious, because I see your posts frequently in threads about science topics.

I am a physicist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you have some credible source for that and for Christianity being the cause?

Any complete argument would require some detailed examination of things I am not expert in, but there is a correlation, that if mere coincidence is quite striking.

Roman science was doing pretty well in the imperial period, then science went largely into abeyance throughout the empire (it wasn't much of a thing in the rest of Europe at the time). It only returns and recovers in the late medieval period/Renaissance when revived by outside influences. Perhaps this is just due to the economic collapse of the Roman empire, but is sure looks suspicious.

(That I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've seen posters on this site who can't tell the difference between science and atheism [sic] makes it hard for me to accept that the supernatural system I used to accept is the basis for the methodological naturalism of the scientific process.)

 

[oikonomia]

I think modern people who argue for a flat earth are making an idol out of conservative mistrust in authority period.
It appears to be a sport of distrust of authority for its own sake.

I mean there is just enough reasoning there to stubbornly debate that "You haven't yet forced me to believe this."

I am willing to be corrected if necessary. But it seems some wear as a badge of honor the distrust of contemporary accepted understandings for the mere sake of stubbornly holding that "The OLD way of thinking is better." This is extreme distrust of modernity almost for its own sake.

Isn't this insistence that the earth is flat (not a sphere) a kind of hyper conservative distrust in modernity for the sheer sake of distrust?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Isn't this … for the sheer sake of distrust?

they delight in the idea …

 

[d taylor]

I think modern people who argue for a flat earth are making an idol out of conservative mistrust in authority period.
It appears to be a sport of distrust of authority for its own sake.

I mean there is just enough reasoning there to stubbornly debate that "You haven't yet forced me to believe this."

I am willing to be corrected if necessary. But it seems some wear as a badge of honor the distrust of contemporary accepted understandings for the mere sake of stubbornly holding that "The OLD way of thinking is better." This is extreme distrust of modernity almost for its own sake.

Isn't this insistence that the earth is flat (not a sphere) a kind of hyper conservative distrust in modernity for the sheer sake of distrust?

-
​

...No, it is believing God at His (word) written creation descriptions given in The Bible (for me).

..Just like God has give the one requirement to receive His free gift of Eternal Life that is to believe in Jesus.

..So in both examples i believe God at His given word in The Bible. I do not look to some other area to define God's word, The Bible perfectly fills this need.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The Bible (for me).​

Too extreme

 

[Rev. Adam McKay PhD]

I am a physicist.

How does that work exactly? I don't know much about the sciences as they are Satanic, but how is one a "physicist"? Like, you have a degree in it or is that your actual job title?

 

[Lost4words]

-
​

...No, it is believing God at His (word) written creation descriptions given in The Bible (for me).

..Just like God has give the one requirement to receive His free gift of Eternal Life that is to believe in Jesus.

..So in both examples i believe God at His given word in The Bible. I do not look to some other area to define God's word, The Bible perfectly fills this need.

You are incorrect.

Believing in God's word is one thing but, you are 'interpreting' God's word to suit your own narrow beliefs my friend.

 

[d taylor]

You are incorrect.

Believing in God's word is one thing but, you are 'interpreting' God's word to suit your own narrow beliefs my friend.

-​

You are the one who interprets The Bible through science. So you are one of many who bring outside information to Bible interpretation.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

When Jesus returns, there will be a lot rewriting of science books to match the truths of The Bible.

 

[JohnEmmett]

When Jesus returns, there will be a lot rewriting of science books to match the truths of The Bible.​

…

 

[prodromos]

I don't know much about the sciences as they are Satanic

Are all the things you are ignorant of, 'satanic'?

 

[Lost4words]

-​

You are the one who interprets The Bible through science. So you are one of many who bring outside information to Bible interpretation.

Nope...i dont interpret God's word to say the earth is flat! Thats for sure my friend!!

Nowhere does it say the earth is flat.

 

[Suzanne_L]

I am a physicist.

I haven’t read the thread (and I don’t think the Earth is flat) but by questioning someone’s training, are you essentially saying that average people can’t read up on something and have a valid point? Only experts? If so, that’s a logical fallacy. I imagine as a physicist you might know a thing or two about other areas of knowledge.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't know much about the sciences as they are Satanic, but how is one a "physicist"

Sciences are satanic?
That would include computer science that brings you to the internet.
By your reasoning you have been led here by Satan.