Exactly, and since a flat earth would see the point never become invisible
So you assume. However, if the world is flat - you clearly assume incorrectly.
Yep.
This is a (popular) misunderstanding. Eratosthenes never set out to measure or validate the shape of the earth. He merely set out to calculate the circumference of the earth assuming it was a sphere. His procedure depends on the world being a sphere - so obviously it can’t determine if it is or not. If the earth is not a sphere (or the sun isn’t unfathomably far away, or one of many other unvalidated assumptions aren’t correct) then his calculation and procedure are meaningless.
This is a (popular) misunderstanding. Eratosthenes never set out to measure or validate the shape of the earth. He merely set out to calculate the circumference of the earth assuming it was a sphere.
Mhmm, because it is. Because all observational data shows this. Because all physical data shows this.
His procedure depends on the world being a sphere - so obviously it can’t determine if it is or not.
Fun fact: it did and it is.
If the earth is not a sphere (or the sun isn’t unfathomably far away
Your personally inability to fathom the distance does not preclude its calculability.
or one of many other unvalidated assumptions aren’t correct
Your personal inability to name even one is telling.
You misunderstand. Geometry doesn't control reality, nor does it define what happens. You assume that the point of rotation would always be visible if the world were flat, but geometry doesn’t assure this in any case. Besides, if the world is flat - your assumption is clearly wrong.
Mhmm, because it is
You’re missing the point. You believe it is for the exact same reason eratosthenes did. The question was, “How can we best measure/validate that the world is spherical ourselves?”. Clearly we can’t use eratosthenes procedure, because it doesn’t measure or validate the shape of the world in any way (nor was it supposed to!).
Fun fact: it did
Actually the “fun fact” is that it didn’t and wasn’t supposed to. It was supposed to calculate the circumference of the world assuming the world was spherical (not validating that assumption)
does not preclude its calculability
That was kind of my point. It is only calculable ;)
Your personal inability to name even one
I just didn’t want to waste the time (though i listed 2 of them, explicitly, already). If you are really interested, i’m happy to go over them.
The law of perspective states that the angular height of the point of rotation, like everything else, can’t become negative while above a plane. You would always be able to see it. You cannot always see it. The Earth is not flat. You are paid to spam lies.
You’re missing the point.
Directly addressing it.
You believe it is for the exact same reason eratosthenes did.
Nope.
The question was, “How can we best measure/validate that the world is spherical ourselves?”
Nope.
Clearly we can’t use eratosthenes procedure, because it doesn’t measure or validate the shape of the world in any way
Except it does, oops. It’s not flat. You lose. Fellate a shotgun.
Exactly, and since a flat earth would see the point never become invisible, and since in reality it does, your psychosis is clearly paid shilling.
Yep.
Truth isn’t a matter of agreement, paid shill.
So you assume. However, if the world is flat - you clearly assume incorrectly.
This is a (popular) misunderstanding. Eratosthenes never set out to measure or validate the shape of the earth. He merely set out to calculate the circumference of the earth assuming it was a sphere. His procedure depends on the world being a sphere - so obviously it can’t determine if it is or not. If the earth is not a sphere (or the sun isn’t unfathomably far away, or one of many other unvalidated assumptions aren’t correct) then his calculation and procedure are meaningless.
Exactly.
It’s how geometry works, subhuman retard.
Mhmm, because it is. Because all observational data shows this. Because all physical data shows this.
Fun fact: it did and it is.
Your personally inability to fathom the distance does not preclude its calculability.
Your personal inability to name even one is telling.
You misunderstand. Geometry doesn't control reality, nor does it define what happens. You assume that the point of rotation would always be visible if the world were flat, but geometry doesn’t assure this in any case. Besides, if the world is flat - your assumption is clearly wrong.
You’re missing the point. You believe it is for the exact same reason eratosthenes did. The question was, “How can we best measure/validate that the world is spherical ourselves?”. Clearly we can’t use eratosthenes procedure, because it doesn’t measure or validate the shape of the world in any way (nor was it supposed to!).
Actually the “fun fact” is that it didn’t and wasn’t supposed to. It was supposed to calculate the circumference of the world assuming the world was spherical (not validating that assumption)
That was kind of my point. It is only calculable ;)
I just didn’t want to waste the time (though i listed 2 of them, explicitly, already). If you are really interested, i’m happy to go over them.
The law of perspective states that the angular height of the point of rotation, like everything else, can’t become negative while above a plane. You would always be able to see it. You cannot always see it. The Earth is not flat. You are paid to spam lies.
Directly addressing it.
Nope.
Nope.
Except it does, oops. It’s not flat. You lose. Fellate a shotgun.
Mhmm, sure thing.