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.
Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.
There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.
Directly addressing it.
Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure. Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it :(
Nope
Lol. You might want to go back and read the question you tried to answer with the scientific american link. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about.
Except it does
Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that? How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful ever validate that shape? Can you explain your reasoning?
You lose
You cannot lose a conversation, but you can lose the plot/point of it :(
Mhmm, sure thing.
Why bother listing the others when you’ve already ignored/missed the 2 i did explicitly mention? As i said, if you want to discuss it - i’m game. However, you’ve made it clear you don’t really want to do that :(
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.
Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.
There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.
Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure. Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it :(
Lol. You might want to go back and read the question you tried to answer with the scientific american link. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about.
Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that? How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful ever validate that shape? Can you explain your reasoning?
You cannot lose a conversation, but you can lose the plot/point of it :(
Why bother listing the others when you’ve already ignored/missed the 2 i did explicitly mention? As i said, if you want to discuss it - i’m game. However, you’ve made it clear you don’t really want to do that :(